Cooperative Parks Consultation Report

APPENDIX 1

Consultation on Lambeth’s Cooperative Parks Programme

1. Introduction

1.1 We consulted on the council’s proposals to change the way we manage parks and open spaces across the borough. The council is proposing greater involvement of the community and local Friends groups in how decisions are made in the running of individual local parks and open spaces.

1.2 The proposals included a basic framework for cooperative management, including three basic models (although it is expected that each park would have a different approach). The council also wanted to consult around suggested physical improvements to parks to feed into its three year Capital Investment Plan.

1.3 Aims and objectives

The consultation focused on the following:

• Whether stakeholders agreed or disagreed with the idea of greater involvement of the community and Friends groups in how parks and open spaces are managed.

• What people thought about the three Cooperative Management models:

o Council led Management – traditional council-managed approach o Cooperative Management – the creation of a representative partnership between the council, community, councillors and other partners who jointly make decisions about their local park or open space o Community-led Management – where community-led group/s have responsibility for managing the park or facility and the council adopts a monitoring role.

• Whether people had suggestions or ideas around how cooperative management approach could work – overall or in relation to a specific park/green space.

• What people think of the proposed new vision, which took into account the ideals of a more cooperative way of working.

1 Capital Investment:

• Whether people had noticed improvements in their local park over the last 5 years, and how satisfied people were with recent improvements

• What future improvements people thought were needed in their local park or green space.

1.4 The consultation was carried out between 26 July and 18 October 2013.

1.5 This report provides details of how we have consulted and the feedback we received.

2. Consultation methods

2.1 We used a number of different methods to obtain comments and feedback on the proposals. These included:

2.2 Nine public consultation meetings; these were led by the led by the Cabinet Member for Culture and Leisure, and senior staff within the council’s Cooperative management and Parks teams. We held public meetings for local residents and representatives of Friends groups, community groups and local organisation to come along and hear what is being proposed, and give their comments, opinions and ideas.

2.3 Self-completion questionnaires – these included a detailed 12 page questionnaire, a short questionnaire, and a questionnaire for young people. We produced paper and online versions of the questionnaires, and distributed them widely.

2.4 Distribution of questionnaires - this included: • a wide email distribution using the council’s lists of Friends groups, community and voluntary sector organisations, businesses, GPs and schools. • paper copy drops of questionnaires and the display of posters in libraries and public offices across the borough. • paper copy drops through over 8000 letter boxes in households surrounding parks across the borough, including a flyer of public meetings and a short paper questionnaire. • Copies of questionnaires sent to schools via the headteacher, school Governors and during visits to primary schools. • Copies of questionnaires distributed at a number of different community events held in parks, consultation meetings, and smaller Friends of Parks and Management Advisory Group meetings.

2 2.5 Publicity : • Posters and flyers: We produced a selection of A2 and A4 posters, and A5 flyers which included a link to the council’s website (www.lambeth.gov.uk/cooperativeparks ) • We produced a flyer including all public meeting dates, and a telephone number and email address for queries, or to request paper copies of consultation documents. • We arranged for posters to be displayed in parks using parks noticeboards. • We distributed posters, flyers and questionnaires to all libraries, leisure centres and public offices including the Lambeth service centre, and an electronic feed at the Town Hall. • Articles in local media: We included advertisements in Lambeth Weekender and Lambeth Talk (August and October 2013) directing people to the council’s website or telephone number. • Social media: We publicised the consultation using Twitter feeds, blogs, and social media sites such as Facebook, including the public consultation meeting dates.

2.6 Face to face interviews – we conducted 513 face to face interviews in local parks and green spaces to gather feedback from residents using the park and attending events.

2.7 Face to face interviews – we commissioned Stockwell Partnership to carry out 149 face to face interviews with specific BME groups. These included Polish, Portuguese, Somali, Asian, and North African residents.

2.8 Qualitative feedback: we conducted more detailed interviews and groups with a number of other groups. These included: • Interviews and small groups with older people – we gathered feedback in the north and south of the borough using a coffee morning for over 65s in Waterloo and at a day centre in Streatham. • Interviews and small groups with people with a physical or sensory disability – we talked with people at the Aspire day centre in West Norwood (18-64 years) • Telephone interviews (semi-structured) – we conducted a number of telephone interviews (10-20 mins) to gather more detailed feedback from people who had provided some feedback. These included: (a) people who had attended a public meeting (and who had some knowledge of the proposals) and (b) people who took part in a face to face interview in a local park (and who had less knowledge of the proposals).

3 2.9 Other meetings: the Operational Parks Manager and Programme Manager presented the proposals at a number of other local meetings to discuss the proposals and gather feedback. These included local Friends group meetings.

2.10 In additional to meetings, the questionnaire, face to face survey, interviews and discussion groups, we provided a range of ways for people to give us their feedback and comments: • sending an email to [email protected] • sending a text to us using 07772 103 628 • calling Freephone 0800 013 1497 to give comments over the telephone or request assistance to complete the consultation feedback form. • sending a letter using the ACS consultation Freepost address provided.

3. How we told people about the consultation

3.1 We used a variety of ways to make sure that people knew about the consultation and how to take part.

3.2 Lambeth residents: we posted information about the consultation on the council’s website, including access to all relevant consultation documents. We also publicised information about the consultation in local media, distributed to all households in the borough.

3.3 Councillors: an elected member briefing pack was produced which included the relevant consultation information and documents, which was emailed as well as hard copies delivered to all Lambeth Councillors

3.4 Partner organisations: we distributed information widely by email to all relevant stakeholders including local Friends and community groups, partner, voluntary and community sector organisations, and private sector providers. We used the GIFTs database to send information to around 900 voluntary and community groups, including local BME groups, health and social care groups, and faith groups.

3.5 Scrutiny Committee: the proposal was discussed at Environment and Community Safety Scrutiny Sub-Committee

4. Consultation documents

4.1 A number of documents were available as part of the consultation, including an Information booklet on the proposals.

5. Other formats, community languages and access

4 5.1 This information was offered in a range of formats and community languages.

5.2 We made the questionnaire available in online and paper formats

5.3 We advertised a Freephone telephone number (0800 013 1497) to offer further information and advice on the proposals, and take down feedback over the telephone

5.4 We offered an induction loop at public meetings, for people who were hard of hearing – although we received no requests.

5.5 We offered transport to meetings where people require assistance to attend.

5.6 We used bi-lingual interviewers to gather information from Polish, Somali, Portuguese, and North African residents 1via Stockwell Partnership 2.

5.7 We used a British Sign Language interpreter at Aspire to gather feedback from people who are Deaf.

6. Public consultation meetings

6.1 We arranged nine public consultation meetings, each lasting between 60-120 minutes across the borough. We were careful to organise meetings at different times of the day in each locality to maximise attendance. Please see a full list of public meetings with numbers attending below.

6.2 At the meetings, background information and information about the proposals were presented by the Operational Parks Manager, Cooperative Services Manager, and the Cooperative Parks Programme Manager. Meetings were also attended by the Cabinet Member for Culture and Leisure, and at two of the meetings information was presented by local representatives about existing work being carried out. The second part of the meeting included discussion around the proposals, and questions and answers.

6.3 We provided note takers at each of the meetings and eight of the meetings were recorded (with consent).

1 Arabic / Tigrinian / Amharic [Ethiopian] / Eritrean principally 2 149 face to face interviews

5 7. Consultation responses received

Public meetings: Brixton meeting at Karibu Education Centre on 3 September 2013 15

Streatham meeting at English Martyrs Church on 4 September 2013 13 Stockwell meeting at South London YMCA on 11 September 2013 6

Norwood meeting at The Old Library on 19 September 2013 6

Clapham meeting at Lambeth Academy on 25 September 2013 43 Kennington meeting at St Agnes Church on 26 September 2013 25

Norwood meeting at Elmgreen School on 3 October 2013 11

Stockwell meeting at South London YMCA on October 2013 8

Streatham meeting at Wellfield Centre on 14 October 2013 8

Total attending public meetings: 135

Survey responses:

Long questionnaire 345 (Including 74 completed by bilingual interviewers – BME groups 3) Short questionnaire 465 (Including 75 completed by bilingual interviewers – BME groups) Face to face interviews in parks 513

Youth questionnaire 100

Total survey responses: 1,423

Qualitative methods:

Semi-structured telephone interviews with residents with a higher 18 level of interest in the management of parks Small groups and face to face interviews with older people: 20

Waterloo Action Centre Coffee morning for over 65s (12) Drop in centre for older people – Woodlawns Streatham (8) Small groups and face to face interviews with people with a physical 16

3 Stockwell Partnership were commissioned to conduct interviews with residents falling into four BME groups. They conducted a total of 149 interviews using both short and long questionnaires.

6 disability: Aspire Day Centre for people with physical or sensory disability (18- 64 years) – Norwood Total qualitative responses: 54

Other evidence: Number of emails to the Cooperative Parks email address 42 (including expressions of interest/ proposals 4 – not included in our analysis of consultation feedback)

Total survey responses = 1,654

4 We recorded18 Expressions of interest received by the Cooperative Parks programme (at the time of publication)

7 Feedback from consultation

Background

This report provides details of all the feedback and comments received during the consultation period. It includes feedback from public meetings, questionnaires, face to face and telephone interviews, discussion groups, emails, and letters.

Once feedback, comments and data had been gathered, we then sorted data into themes for analysis and interpretation.

The report includes key issues identified by people who took part in the consultation, with some examples of the comments received.

We have included quotes taken direct from questionnaires, from the notes at the various meetings and from emails and letters submitted.

In order to maintain confidentiality, where relevant, we have removed personal details that might identify someone.

Summary of the feedback from the consultation

Format of the report

We have organised feedback from the consultation into two main themes – cooperative working and capital investment. Following these, we have drawn together information by individual parks (across both cooperative working and capital investment)

Introduction and methodology

Part 1: Cooperative working in parks and open spaces

1.1 Views of management models and community involvement

1.2 Concerns around cooperative working

1.3 Implementing cooperative management

1.4 Budgets and finance

Part 2: Capital Investment

2.1 Had people noticed recent improvements to their park?

2.2 Were they satisfied with these improvements?

2.3 What future improvements did people select?

2.4 Suggested improvements - What other physical improvements did people want?

Part 1 – Community involvement and cooperative management of Lambeth’s parks and open spaces

Overview of evidence – are residents interested in getting involved in the management of parks and open spaces?

There is little doubt from top line results of surveys, from meetings and other evidence that the majority of respondents support greater involvement from communities and Friends groups in decision making about parks and open spaces.

Although we found lower levels of support/agreement from regular parks users and residents attending events (61%), this was still six out of ten residents, and we can therefore conclude that we found general support for greater involvement in Lambeth.

Section 1. Level of agreement with having different models 5

We asked respondents if they agreed or disagreed with the idea of having different models for managing parks and open spaces.

The majority of respondents (73%) agreed – which included 29% who strongly agreed and 44% who tended to agree. Only 7% disagreed.

On whether residents thought that the community and Friends groups should be involved, 89% strongly agreed/agreed. Please see further analysis of these results on the following page.

Table 1: Views on management models and community involvement % % % % % % % % Agree Strongly Tend Neither Tend to Strongly Don’t agree to agree disagree disagree know / agree nor no disagree opinion Different models for managing parks and 73 29 44 13 7 3 4 open spaces Including communities and ‘Friends’ groups in 89 62 27 6 2 1 2 decision making Base=336 (Long questionnaire)

Analysis by sub-group – agreement with having different models: We found no variation by park or by any of the demographic or equalities groups for this question.

5 Long questionnaire only

Section 2. Involvement of communities and Friends groups in decision making about parks and open spaces

We also asked respondents how far they agreed with the proposal for the council to include communities and ‘Friends’ groups in decision making about parks and open spaces.

Nine in ten completing a questionnaire think there should be involvement from the community:

Long questionnaire 6: The vast majority of respondents (89%) agreed, including 62% who strongly agreed and 27% who tended to agree. Only 3% disagreed.

Short questionnaire 7: Similarly when people were asked how involved the community should be (in the shorter questionnaire), 90% said very involved/involved – there was a slight difference here as only 30% said “very involved” (compared to 62% strongly agree on the long questionnaire).

Those completing the more detailed questionnaire were more far more likely to strongly agree with greater community involvement.

Only 6% thought the council should have full control. 8

Lower support amongst the general public (60%)

Face to face survey: When looking at results from the face to face survey (513) – where respondents were approached in parks and at events by an interviewer – we found a 30% drop in levels of support/interest.

It is likely that the interviews captured views from people who might not have ordinarily taken part in the consultation. 60% strongly agreed/agreed that there should be involvement.

How far respondents would like the community to be involved in decision making (very involved/involved) by type of survey %

6 Question in long questionnaire: To what extent do you agree or disagree with the proposal for the council to include communities and Friends groups in decision making about parks and open spaces?

7 Question in short questionnaire: How much do you think you and people in Lambeth should be included in decision making about parks and open spaces?

8 Short questionnaire – question 1a.

100 89 90 90 80 76 70 60 60 50 40 31 30 20 11 8 10 6 0 Long Short Face to face Youth Involved Not involved ]

Analysis by subgroup - involvement of the community in management 9

When we analysed responses by demographic groups, we identified significant differences by park and by ethnic group, but not by gender, age or disability/long term illness.

Community involvement x Park : Evidence that there is variation by Park:

The results indicated variation between Lambeth parks with Kennington 10 , Ruskin 11 and Brockwell Park 12 showing higher than average support for involvement, with Larkhall Park showing lower than average support.

The number of responses by park is less than 50, so we must take this into account in assessing the reliability of the results by park - for both the short questionnaire and face to face interviews.

Community involvement x Area/Patch:

Central patch showed greater support involvement – but only for the general public 13

9 Short questionnaire and face to face interviews 10 Short questionnaire only. No variation was found in results for the face to face survey. Numbers of responses were too small to carry out comparable analysis for the Long questionnaire. 11 Short questionnaire and face to face interviews. 12 Face to face survey only. No variation was identified in short questionnaires. Face to face interviews targeted the general public, rather than those choosing to take part in the consultation, and we have established that this group is distinct from questionnaire respondents. Please note – the numbers were too small for analysis by park for the long questionnaire.

When we group parks into area / patch (Central, Clapham and Stockwell, South and North), we found that a higher proportion of residents in the Central/Brixton patch supported community involvement (72% compared to 60% average).

This compares to 51% of respondents in the North patch, 52% in Clapham and Stockwell patch, and 57% in the South patch. It is also interesting to note that respondents identifying a non-Lambeth local park (72%), showed a higher level of support for involvement, than Lambeth residents (60%).

Please note that any variation between patches/areas is lost for the short questionnaire, which would suggest that where there is a level of interest, this tends to be linked an interest in their local park.

Community involvement x Ethnic group

Variation by ethnic group:

We also found that respondents in BME groups were less likely to support community involvement in parks. This variation was found across all three methods – including short and long questionnaires, and face to face interviews.

• There was a 13% difference between White and BME residents for both long and short self-completion surveys. BME residents showed a lower level of support.

o 76% of BME respondents ticked very or fairly involved, compared to 89% of all residents and 93% of White residents (long questionnaire – 13% difference). o 77% of BME residents ticked very or fairly involved, compared to 90% of all residents, and 96% of White residents (short questionnaire – 13% difference).

• Face to face interviews found that 50% of BME residents picked very or fairly involved, compared to 60% of all respondents, and 67% of White respondents (10% difference)

Residents speaking a language other than English:

Respondents interviewed in a community language 14 were significantly less likely to say Very or Fairly involved 15 (question 1a short questionnaire).

13 Results from face to face survey, which includes people approached by an interviewer. 14 Residents interviewed by Stockwell Partnership (Polish, Portuguese, Somali, Eritrean) = 149 15 Question 1a for the short questionnaire

71% ticked very/fairly involved compared to 90% of all respondents (average). This finding was also reflected in findings from interviews using the more detailed questionnaire with speakers of community languages. 74% of these residents said that they “Strongly agreed/ Tended to agree” with greater community involvement compared to 89% of all respondents 16 .

Community involvement x Age/Gender/Disability:

We found no significant differences when the results around support for community involvement were analysed by gender, age group, or disability/long term condition again across all three surveys methods.

We also found no significant differences when results were analysed by religion, employed/not employed, housing tenure or sexual orientation 17 .

Community involvement x whether member of Friends group or not:

As might be expected, Lambeth residents who are also a member of a Friends group were more likely to support involvement, with 75% ticking very or fairly involved, compared to 51% of other Lambeth residents, and 55% average 18 .

Youth survey

We asked young people who they thought should be involved in deciding what happens in their local park or green space.

Half of the young people we asked thought that local people and the council should decide together and a further 26% thought that local people should decide.

11% thought the council should make the decisions and 9% were not sure.

Young people’s views on who should make decisions are depicted below.

16 Question 2b for Long questionnaire 17 Long questionnaire only. 18 Please note – the average of 55% is lower than the previously stated average of 60% ticking very or fairly involved for the face to face interviews. This is because non-Lambeth residents were removed from the base – to allow comparison between Lambeth residents who are a Friend and those who are not a Friend.

60 50 50

30 26

20 11 9 10 4

0 Local peopleLocal people and CouncilThe Council I'm not sure Something else

Section 3. Potential future involvement

When respondents were asked more specifically how they would like to be involved 19 , four in ten (39%) selected Cooperative Management and the same proportion ticked all of the options listed.

38% ticked “developed a new vision” with 36% selecting “joining a community or Friends group”. 27% ticked “future capital investment”.

Developing a new vision for our parks and open spaces 38%

Joining a community/ Friends group 36%

Cooperative Management 39%

Future Capital Investment 27%

All of the above 39%

Other 7%

Future involvement x Park and Area/Patch

Analysis by park/ patch: Average: 38%

19 Long questionnaire only

Respondents in South were most likely to tick “Developing a new vision” (48%), with those in the Central area being least interested (20%). For remaining patches the number of respondents was too few for reliable analysis.

Future involvement x Age/Gender/Disability:

We found no other variation across all equalities and demographic variables.

Section 4. Comments about greater involvement from the community and Friends groups

We received a large number of general comments in support of greater community involvement from questionnaires 20 , interviews, public meetings and emails. Residents also told us that they supported a joint working approach, but people also raised a number of concerns around cooperative working.

Ideas around cooperative management in specific parks 21 are covered after this more overarching section.

The key points were:

General support for a joint approach (council and community) but for the council to retain some responsibility

• people commented that those who used the park had a better understanding of what is needed, and that more involvement in the management of local parks would “increase ownership” of individual parks.

• while residents supported joint working – people wanted to make sure that the council retained an overarching role, with the council continuing to provide support and expertise in certain areas.

• residents commented that each had something different to offer – the community had enthusiasm , while the council would provide professional expertise and experience.

• some people commented that the community were in a good position to mobilise resources and find funding for the parks.

1. Comments - support for joint working and greater community involvement

20 Question asking for comments around greater community involvement included Question 2b (long questionnaire); Question 1b (short questionnaire) and question included in face to face interviews. Question 2c (long questionnaire only) asked for any other comments on further issues to be considered in relation to cooperative working. 21 Question 2d (long questionnaire only)

We received a large number of comments which showed that on the whole, people thought the idea of greater involvement was a necessary move. People thought:

• Communities have a better understanding of what is needed • that it would increase ownership • that residents are better placed because they use the park on a day to day basis and have their “eyes and ears” on the ground • the community has advantages over the council in funding applications/raising money

People generally agreed that there should be joint working between the council and the community for the following reasons: • The council and the community have different skills • The council must retain an overarching role • There were concerns around cooperative working – please see next section

Some people thought the council should retain full control

Comments:

1a. Communities have a better understanding of what is needed

I think local people have a real understanding of their area and know the needs that have to be met better. Local people can better advise as to where the money needs to be spent. (Streatham Common, Short questionnaire)

The MACs and Friends groups are often better placed than the council to understand what local communities and user groups want from their Common, park or open space. It is therefore advantageous both to the council and to the community that these groups should be part of the decision-making process (Clapham Common, Long questionnaire)

Because the users are best placed to decide what they want or need. (Brockwell park, Short questionnaire)

Each area is different and it is difficult for the council to know what residents want or need in their pars or open spaces. (Myatt’s Fields, Short questionnaire)

People should get involved in it because they are the one who use these spaces and will know much better how they want their park to be, so that the council can do their best to meet residents or users views. (Face to face interview)

We must have a say in our community management as we are the ones living and using it. (Face to face interview)

1b. Community involvement would increase ownership

It is communities that use these parks so we should be involved in decision-making. Further to that, when individuals and groups are involved in decision-making they feel more "ownership" of the matter in question and tend to be more involved and act more responsibly (Kennington Park, Long questionnaire).

On the plus side it could give a positive feeling of ownership. (Telephone interview with local resident)

To give people a sense of ownership so they can take pride in their park and maybe look after them better. (Face to face interview)

Benefits of having greater community involvement are that instead of communities seeing the parks as owned by the council they feel that they have a share in the ownership. I am pro enfranchisement of people, especially young people as I see these as disenfranchised and anything that builds bridges is good, so involve them. As a group people should be able to approach the council and decide on events and other things that should go on in the park. (Telephone interview with local resident)

1c. Residents using the park have their “eyes and ears on the ground”

Because we are the ones that use the park. (Kennington Park, Short questionnaire)

The people who use the space and are interested and know what is needed and required – they are the eyes and ears on the ground, and they are in touch with genuine needs. (Clapham Common, Long questionnaire)

1d. The community has advantages for fund raising and efficiency

While the community may also have access to other funds, people also thought that having locals involved would be much more efficient as money would only be spent on what people wanted.

It does seem to me on the back of that, the most positive aspect is that a properly constituted Friends group can apply to other places for funding in the way that Lambeth probably can’t. And then obviously with a very big thing like Myatt’s Fields, we know they’ve had money from the lottery. There are also lesser things, smaller places one can go to. So I think that one aspect of it is that it helps finances. (Stockwell public meeting, 11 September 2013)

Regarding park management, I think that it’s a good idea for the community to be more involved with the park, they get more value because they can spent the money more on what people want and so the money will go further. The community have got really good ideas. (Telephone interview with local resident)

2. There should be joint working between council and community

People felt that each had something different to contribute in terms of skills, expertise and knowledge of the park. While the community had enthusiasm, the council had experience and professional expertise. Many people commented that they felt it would be important for the council to retain some responsibility – even if this was an overarching role.

No one management solution can be right for all, but I strongly believe that the cooperative model of shared decision making and responsibility should be the aspirational baseline. (Clapham Common, Short questionnaire)

2a. The council and community have different skills

Council has resources and expertise while community has the passion and enthusiasm. (Clapham Common, short questionnaire)

It would be good to have local knowledge of park users combined with expertise and experience from the Council. (Streatham Common, short questionnaire)

The community should be involved but the Council has the expertise to run facilities here. (Streatham Common/ The Rookery, short questionnaire)

I think it would be great for the communities to be involved and guide the decision making, but I think we need the Council's expertise and skills to put the community vision into practise and also balance competing interests. (Streatham Common/ Brockwell Park, short questionnaire)

2b. The council should retain some responsibility (please also see Governance issues)

Residents commented that the council needed to: • Ensure that the relevant guidelines and requirements were met • Provide specialist advice on park management/ operational issues • Provide a balancing role to make sure that groups acted in the interests of the wider community

It is important that communities play a large role in parks but I’d also like Council responsibility to be maintained to help meet relevant guidelines or requirements and to ensure that there are balanced decisions. (Brockwell Park, short questionnaire)

There is a need for specialist expertise on urban park management, which the community may not have. (Brockwell Park, short questionnaire)

The Council needs to retain some responsibility for decision making, not least it would give decisions by the running body some weight. (Clapham Common, short questionnaire)

People know what they want so, I see the role of the Council as a facilitator and to provide overall management, advice and organisation. For example, with booking events if two things were being booked it would have to be checked that the two events did not directly clash and they did not impede on each other. This would be something that the council would need to do as they have the professional expertise. For example, as well it’s down to organisation, like who is responsible for locking the gate if there were two events on at the same time. (Telephone interview with local resident)

I think the Council should retain some responsibility, with some input from the public. Green spaces are the life blood of our city and it is what makes us so different from other major capital cities. Parks must not only be retained, but also maintained. Local forums are good for individual parks or areas. (Streatham Common, short questionnaire)

These are the groups that provide the strongest voice for the protection and improvement of local parks, however it is important for the Council to maintain an overseeing role so that these groups do not become self-selecting or promote a series of views that do not reflect the best interests of the whole community but rather a section within the community (Streatham Common, Long questionnaire)

Elected representatives can be held to account. What control would we have over the actions of other members of the community? (Myatt’s Fields, short questionnaire)

3. The council should continue to run parks and open spaces (council management model)

Some people thought that the council should continue to manage parks, and that it should not pass on any of its management role over to the community.

This preference was expressed almost exclusively in the face to face interviews with the general public. In these comments, residents felt that as the council must act for the benefit of everyone, that decisions would be made more fairly, but also simply that other residents may not manage it very well.

These comments suggest that there is an element of doubt amongst the general public around whether cooperative management would necessarily be a positive thing for Lambeth’s parks.

This is good for the council alone to run the park because anyone else will just mess the system for nothing and destroy our park. The council only should run parks. (Face to face interview)

I think if we leave the management of our parks to the council, this is a good idea rather than someone else doing it. If I am wrong, tell me about it. (Face to face interview)

I prefer the Council because they don't have to work to suit anybody but they do it for the benefit of everyone. (Face to face interview)

I want the council to keep the parks because they have always act for the benefit of all residents. They plan events they suit us and make our park a priority. (Face to face interview)

The council because I cannot see either local residents or community looking after the park. Residents are just users of parks. (Face to face interview)

Because the council never abandon the park. They do everything to keep it nice and welcoming. They must retain full control of these spaces. (Face to face interview)

I want the council to retain full control because they are looking after the park and they are doing good job because if the community take control, there will be change of policy and management. (Face to face interview)

I would prefer the council because it allows fairer decisions to be made by an independent group than the community. When there is a small group like Friends of parks, this doesn't bring a positive feedback to the residents. When Lambeth do the job, they do it fairly for the need of everyone. I am against this idea of a cooperative.(Face to face interview)

I would rather the council dealt with the parks as they seemingly are the best qualified people for the job. (Face to face interview)

Section 4. Concerns around cooperative working:

Overview

The following concerns about a more cooperative way of working :

• Getting more people involved - getting wider groups of local residents interested and involved in their local parks and open spaces was a challenge for existing community and Friends groups. While representation of groups is very important, there is the wider issue of generating more interest and enthusiasm within local communities about parks.

• Some community and Friends groups would not have the necessary level of expertise, manpower and resources to take on the running of parks successfully.

It may not be appropriate for some groups to take on more responsibilities, and careful checks would need to be carried out by the council. There would need to be a period of capacity building before some groups are ready.

• Residents questioned what budget would be available, and how much control a cooperative management group would have over the budget. There were concerns whether enough funding would be available to groups.

• People might lack the time to provide commitment and consistency over the longer term. Some residents may get involved over “fad issues” then lose interest.

• It would be important to ensure that park management groups reflect the diverse interests and views of all members of the community in order to guarantee balanced decisions.

• There could be issues with “interest groups” , who may have an agenda which might not reflect the needs of the wider community. The role and makeup of various groups, including Friends groups was also questioned.

• People were concerned that Friends groups could have more weight over decisions compared to general residents who are not affiliated with Friends groups.

• There could be possible issues around disputes – and the council’s role here would provide an important balance.

• Negative experiences of bureaucracy and ‘ red tape’ in the past taint public confidence in cooperative management for the future.

Comments about concerns broken down into themes

1. Getting more people involved and enthusiastic about parks

• Although we found that residents in general did support greater involvement, people did not necessarily want to get involved themselves. In the consultation questionnaire, we asked about possible future involvement, and only around four in ten said that they would like to get involved in cooperative management.

• Despite the efforts of existing Friends and community groups, we have heard in questionnaires and during meetings that there have been difficulties recruiting interested residents from a more diverse background.

I think there should be more involvement of asking people directly in the park to build more respect for the park. I find it quite challenging. A large group of people take the park for granted especially after events where there is a lot of litter and rubbish. There

could be clubs that ensure that there is more involvement, because those people who are more involved will automatically become more respectful towards it. (Telephone interview with local resident)

I would like to become a part of the community of Clapham Common park, I’d like to be involved in whatever is available, whether it’s going for nature walks or getting people with disabilities out more using the park. Perhaps there could be a day where there is access and support for other people? Id’ like to be involved in cleaning up the community and getting more people in the park. (Telephone interview with local resident)

2. Budget issues - would the community have enough money or funding to run parks properly?

• Residents commented that management cooperatives needed to be provided with sufficient money by the council to manage the park successfully; another issue was how much control cooperatives would have over the budget.

• Residents were suspicious that the council was only offering cooperative management in its effort to achieve savings - by getting people to effectively work “for free.”

• Residents felt that the money generated from the park should be used (or a greater percentage of it) for making improvements to the park. It was also felt that some parks would not be able to raise funds from other sources such as Section 106 or through grants to cover maintenance cost (please see section on Finance/ Budget).

Money from the council:

I am a member of the Friends of Kennington Park and I think the community participants are well placed to participate in the oversight of the park, but they don't have enough resources to run it fully. (Kennington Park, short questionnaire)

It's our park but we need the Council's money.(Myatt’s Fields, short questionnaire)

If it’s just the community the Council is likely to pull funding. (Archbishop’s Park, short questionnaire)

I would like to be involved in decisions, but I am worried that members of the community get forced to work for free instead of the Council employees, lovely well educated gardeners. (Vauxhall Park, short questionnaire)

This is where I come back to us working voluntarily. Will voluntary groups take over the

park officer’s role so park officers can sit back and have a nice life? (Norwood public meeting, 19 September 2013)

Concerns around whether the community has the time, expertise and resources?

Together with budget/money, residents were particularly concerned around whether the cooperative management groups would have the necessary expertise and time to manage parks and open spaces successfully. This was reflected in the large number of comments we received from residents and groups. The key issues were as follows:

• Many residents, particularly the general public, commented that many people lacked the time to get involved in these types of initiatives.

• Some people said that they would like to get involved but would not be able to do so on a regular basis and over a longer period of time.

• Residents voiced concerns that people getting involved in the short term could cause difficulties due to a lack of continuity. There were questions over whether community would have the necessary resilience or staying power.

• There were concerns that members of the community, however well intentioned, would not have the necessary knowledge or expertise.

The community need to be involved but there maybe not enough people, time or commitment available to actually manage the parks themselves. (Brockwell Park, short questionnaire)

It very much depends on how much time this all takes – it is one thing giving up a few hours but quite another if it is so much work that it becomes an unpaid job. (Telephone interview with local resident)

Most people do not have the time to get involved, [those who do get involved tend to be] those who come from a small and unrepresentative section of the local community and do not have the added resources to identify the needs of the wider community. (Streatham Common, short questionnaire)

In my experience people are time short and it would likely be hard to get enough people involved for this option to work. (Ruskin Park, short questionnaire)

I haven’t been involved in any group in the past, but in principle yes I be interested in getting involved in a group if not too time consuming. (Telephone interview with local resident)

It is volunteers you are looking for – that’s what it is, isn’t it? There are three Friends groups that are close to where I live – but I’ve never got involved. I’m too old now – there is enough keeping myself together at my age! (Focus group with older person)

Long term commitment is needed from community members involved:

The biggest issue I have with level 2 is the commitment to manage the park. They might be happy lobbying for a playground but they don’t want to commit to any consistent management of it. (Telephone interview with local resident)

Its success will depend on sufficient committed groups/ individuals coming forward and ensuring continuity when individuals retire from their management role, i.e. careful succession management needed (Clapham Common, Long questionnaire).

I don't believe community is strong enough to manage it. (Larkhall Park, short questionnaire)

Possible lack of expertise/ professionals are still needed:

Disadvantage of involving communities, would be mismanagement if people were not experienced enough and also the possibility that fund could be misappropriated. (Telephone interview with local resident)

Volunteers don't have the time or expertise to take on the responsibility of managing these precious resources. (Clapham Common, short questionnaire)

The success of this will depend on the skills/capacity of particular Friends/community groups. Lambeth cannot expect such groups to deliver on zero resources. If delivery depends purely on volunteers then standards will vary with the capacity of local communities to generate that voluntary effort (St Mark’s Churchyard, Kennington Oval and Claylands Green, Long questionnaire).

Interested to input but lack of experience in this area and lack of time. (Norwood Park, short questionnaire)

Parks and open space management is fundamentally a profession and should not, we believe, be completely replaced by well-intentioned amateurs or overly influential special interest groups, where potential exists for either personal or self-serving agendas / interests can exist, contrary to the wishes of the wider population. (Submission by email from Wandsworth Council)

3. Interest groups or fad issues could have a detrimental impact of the park

• There were concerns that interest groups could skew the running of local cooperatives

• Some people commented that a cooperative management group could be influenced by “self serving” individuals or people with their own agenda.

• It was felt that sometimes the views of “powerful” residents could have undue influence on a local group.

• Friends groups were identified as being a “self-selecting group”, who were often atypical of the community at large. It was felt that such groups often had different interests to the wider community.

• People felt that the council had a role in providing a balance to ensure groups considered the diverse needs of the local residents.

Comments :

Maybe the challenge is that each group will have its own agenda, so the Council’s role will be to mediate. It will be important to gain the trust of the communities as they may see this as just another ‘fad’ and people will be worried that they will have to pay for it. (Interview with local group representative)

Some pressure groups might skew the way a park is run and not take into account the needs of all the users. (Clapham Common, short questionnaire)

The community management will be too dependent on local individuals. It will fluctuate. (Multiple Parks, Long questionnaire)

I don't disagree with the consultation, but do object to 'Friends' who might have an agenda being considered more important than ordinary people (Multiple Parks, Long questionnaire).

I also think that an agency with a wider view than that of local residents alone should also be involved to ensure that decisions are not based on the interests of one particular group of involved or powerful residents who might otherwise begin to see the park as 'theirs'. In reality a well-managed park will also serve many people who are not 'local' residents. (Myatt’s Fields, short questionnaire)

The Council is counterweight to vested interests. (Vauxhall Park, short questionnaire)

4. Concern over makeup and representation of Friends groups and any future management committee / Governance issues

• People voiced concerns around how representative some of the existing Friends groups are. It was felt that the mix of group members would have a strong impact on what is delivered – for example, the kinds of facilities identified for improvement.

• It is clear from evidence and comments that members of Friends groups are very much aware of the need to recruit from a wider mix of residents and have made efforts to do so, but with little success.

• The council had a role in carrying out checks on the makeup and recruitment to cooperative management groups.

Comments:

However "Friends" groups can be biased towards a particular viewpoint and away from others. It depends on the degree of exclusivity that the "Friends" have. For example, how well do they accommodate viewpoints from younger members of the community who might propose removing some green space and converting it to recreational facilities (skate park for example). (Streatham Common, Streatham Vale Park and Clapham Common, Long questionnaire)

I agree so long as they are truly representative. However, in reality those who get involved are those who have the time to do so. For example, the Friends of Streatham common (although very nice) clearly have no interest in making the park a brilliant place for kids to play. They lack ambition and vision; but they are the only ones with the time to get involved (Streatham Common, Long questionnaire).

My motto is everything in moderation. It is often the way with these things – people who regularly use the park don’t have the time to volunteer and be more involved. (Telephone interview with local resident)

The Friends groups should be involved alongside other interest groups. This is so that a fair balance is kept. Some friends groups are more representative than others some scrutiny is needed by Lambeth Council as to the set-up of the groups and how membership is recruited (Ruskin Park, Long questionnaire).

How representative are Friends groups? I'm not suggesting a 'gold standard' of involvement but it would be good to have certain requirements in terms of what groups or the council need to do to engage local residents. For example, simple feedback mechanisms or annual surveys (Ruskin Park, Long questionnaire).

Who should sit on board and how should they be appointed? I think it probably would have to work along the same lines as a residents association and it would be helpful to involve people who have already acted in the local community as they will have experience. (Telephone interview with local resident)

The "community" would be self-selecting and not representative. The Council should be professional and offer an overview (they are also elected) but people who use the park (or might use it) should have a say. (Archbishops Park, short questionnaire)

One of the characteristics of Lambeth is that we have a transient population and people are not taking an interest. It’s very difficult to get ten people to sit around a table or to get minority groups involved. If a group wants to take over a green space and manage it, and if you are going to give them a sum of money, you would want them to be publicly constituted as a group. (Norwood public meeting, 19 September 2013)

5. Friends groups could have more weight than other residents

People were concerned that the views of Friends groups could carry more weight than those in the wider community, particularly more disadvantaged and marginalised groups.

Comments:

However I also think that an agency with a wider view than that of local residents alone should also be involved to ensure that decisions are not based on the interests of one particular group of involved or powerful residents who might otherwise begin to see the park as 'theirs'. (V auxhall Park, short questionnaire)

It has to represent all the community, particularly community groups working with the disadvantaged and marginalised, and not just well organised middle class groups with self-serving agendas (Brockwell Park, Long questionnaire).

One cannot dismiss the needs of the silent majority nor compel all individuals to be part of a 'Friends' group to have their thoughts considered. Friends groups are self- organising and come about due to there being no other common group for likeminded individuals to voice their thoughts and their main point of being is related to the specific park/common. There are also other users of parks and commons such as sporting clubs that are also organised groups but whose primary point of being is to engage in sport. (Clapham Common, long questionnaire)

I'm not sure how visible the Friends groups will be and what influence the average community member would be able to have (Brockwell Park, Long questionnaire)

Red tape and bureaucracy

Some residents commented that people could quickly lose interest if their efforts were thwarted with over complicated council procedures and bureaucracy.

An example given during public consultation meetings was the application form for events – which was considered to be unduly long /complicated. Other examples

included complicated tendering procedures, but also instances where residents had tried to liaise with the council on previous issues, but had been left frustrated by administrative procedures, unresponsive officers and difficulties in contacting officers.

Comments:

In many cases this is recognising what is already happening and often it is the Friends who have fundraised for improvements, although this can sometimes be over complicated by the Council's red tape and tendering procedures (Kennington Park, Long questionnaire).

There is a lot of energy among parks and the Common users who have strong feelings about their open spaces. We don't want to use that energy being at loggerheads with a local authority that we feel ignores our views. We want to be able to use it to improve things (Clapham Common, Long questionnaire)

6. Possible disputes

Several people commented on difficulties where group members did not agree – and how that would be handled. People also talked about how to manage disputes with the council.

Comments:

I can see problems if responsibility is given to a board or set of people e.g. if something breaks and then it is reported to the ‘board’ and then the repair does not happen, then what about accountability , who is responsible – things could get heated , it could be divisive. (Telephone interview with local resident)

There are always many good but sometimes conflicting ideas on how to use open spaces or parks. It would be good to have an elected body i.e. the Council who will listen and try to steer the various ideas to a mutually satisfactory conclusion. Left on their own some communities would never be able to agree!!!! (Clapham Common, short questionnaire)

There are two ways – to handle disputes, one is that the Council makes the decision or the decision is made by the wider community. However, if it is made by the wider community then there would need to be some sort of voting system. Whilst a voting system would be ok it would possibly be difficult in practice to organise and implement (interview with local group representative)

This could be conflicting opinions and may be not understanding limited money and so might have higher expectations than is realistic and so could lead to dissatisfaction. (Telephone interview with local resident)

It’s great to have extreme points of view but it’s difficult to get the balance that would suit the majority but not isolate the minority. I think that the Council and the residents should be involved and I think it’s fantastic that people want to be involved. There are things that I’m not too happy about but in principle people are on board with the idea of cooperative management. (Telephone interview with local resident)

Section 6.Implementing Cooperative Management The need for capacity building was considered to be imperative to the success of the programme. It was felt that groups needed to be given time to take on greater responsibility as time went on – and that this could take in some cases, take several years.

In general, people felt that there needed to be a period of support and capacity building first before expecting communities to take on greater responsibility. In order to implement cooperative management, residents commented that the following steps needed to be taken:

• More consultation, and better communication between the council’s Parks team and members of the community

• An assessment of the level of skills, expertise, knowledge and capacity of existing groups who may be interested in cooperative management

• Clear information around the budget available for individual parks/ open spaces, and detailed agreement of responsibilities of individual cooperative management groups (potentially up to 60, for each park or open space)

Assistance setting up groups: • Information, advice and support from the council to assist groups in recruiting and setting up cooperative management groups, including representation. Groups commented that they needed support on getting a wider group of the general public involved, including young people.

• Encouraging the establishment of links with other organisations with expertise in specific areas

• An assessment of previous smaller scale projects to look at what has worked and what hasn’t worked

On-going support and expertise: • Continued support and advice from the council on operational issues, including the management of contracts, grounds maintenance, events, funding opportunities and so forth

• That the council should have a monitoring role. It should also retain an overarching responsibility for the success of the programme - please see section on Governance

• Further issues included liability and insurance, and the level of control over buildings in parks and open spaces (which could have an impact on funding applications, for example, having a reasonably long lease)

Comments:

Getting the skills and know how:

The local community will have to be educated and obliged to take more direct responsibility. It will be difficult and will take time, probably many years (Eardly Road Sidings Nature Reserve, Long questionnaire)

How do people wanting to set up cooperative management get the skills to do so? Most people I feel don’t have the skills. (Streatham public meeting, 14 October 2013)

If everyone wants to go to Level 3, will this not be a huge burden on council? The group will have to have proper management. A group will need some resilience and development to get off the starting blocks and they will need to have capacity. If they don’t have the ability to do it … it’s just a thought. (Norwood public meeting, 19 September 2013)

An assessment of capacity of existing groups/ what capabilities would be required:

The capacity and competencies of existing groups, how new groups can be accommodated, what themes and specialist areas they focus on: sports, physical activities, food growing and consumption, fundraising, festivals and fairs, trading, environmental sustainability, bio diversity, variety of flora and fauna (Max Roach, Elam - is woeful, Loughborough, Myatt’s Field, Long questionnaire).

I think you should have some defined standards which groups would have to reach in order to take over the management of a park, in terms of their experience/capabilities for managing budgets and projects. Probably a 'probation period' using the Level Two model and it should be required before progressing to Level Three (Ruskin Park, Long questionnaire).

Setting up clear agreements around responsibilities of cooperative management groups:

Create dedicated council contacts to assist with setting up the co-operative. Make information about the common spaces readily available so the co-operative representatives can build an accurate business plan (Streatham Common, Long questionnaire).

I think option 2 is the most feasible option with people getting involved and managing their service. Accountability and decision making needs to be fleshed out, resources and administration management arrangements. We need comprehensive detailed notes… It could present a lot of challenges if it is just a listening exercise and damage enthusiasm and entrepreneurial and local community groups to get involved. There are a some good ideas but there needs to be detail in the structure. (Stockwell public meeting, 11 September 2013)

Looking at other projects and establishing links with organisations with expertise:

I would like to see the London Wildlife Trust being involved as they have expertise in habitat management. Also any other local green groups/charities (Tooting Common, Hillside Park, Palace Road Nature Garden, Long questionnaire)

Look to Lorn Rd allotments Look at South Bank experience of companies (and others?) having beds to maintain this summer - did it work? Lessons learnt? (Lambeth Walk Doorstep Green, Long questionnaire)

The pilot model happening now in Railton Road - where Lambeth council, local traders, residents and the Herne Hill forum are managing the space by Herne Hill station together - is something other groups could learn from (Brockwell Park, Long questionnaire).

Help to set up groups and get more people involved

I think there should be more involvement of asking people directly in the park to build more respect for the park. I find it quite challenging. … . There could be clubs that ensure that there is more involvement, because those people who are more involved will automatically become more respectful towards it. (Telephone interview with local resident)

I would like to become a part of the community of Clapham Common park, I’d like to be involved in whatever is available, whether it’s going for nature walks or getting people with disabilities out more using the park. Perhaps there could be a day where there is access and support for other people? I'd like to be involved in cleaning up the community and getting more people in the park. (Telephone interview with local resident)

Getting young people involved:

We were talking and thinking about a nature reserve and about getting more local kids from the schools involved in the park. We could have green roofs, put CCTV cameras up that would link to local schools and the kids can watch the changing process. (Telephone interview with local resident)

It’s about getting us and the youngsters more involved with the park. I feel the park is not utilised enough. I’d like there to be a kite day so that children can use the park facilities rather than their computer phones. We could get them more active. Telephone interview with local resident)

I think there should be voluntary help getting people together, getting younger people to use the park, doing things like sports, football, getting them to learn about nature and the outside world. (Telephone interview with local resident)

Getting people involved through fitness

I would like to be involved through fitness activities, such as walking, either taking part or organising it. I would like to be involved in the general running of the park eg. Keeping the park healthy for other people to use. I would want to help keep it clean, tidy, litter free and clear of rubbish and dog mess. (Interview with Norwood Park user)

Talking to people in the park

I would suggest using peer to peer methods in the actual park, where you have people talking to people directly in the park and getting them involved. (Telephone interview with local resident)

Managing Contracts

During public meetings, residents with a more in-depth knowledge around the management of parks, referred to the current contracts for operational management of parks – for example, grounds maintenance.

• It was felt that the council’s often large scale contracts with larger corporate companies, delivered poor value for money:

• People felt that a smaller local business would be able to provide a more flexible and responsive service, than the larger companies who often allowed staff to carry out specific duties.

• Residents felt that smaller local companies should be supported in tendering processes by the council – so that they were able to secure work through the cooperative parks programme.

• Large corporate companies often provided and charged for a service – whether it was required or not. For example, mowing the grass during winter months.

• Sometimes there was duplication of work – which could very easily be carried out by one contractor. An example given was the rubbish clearance of litter in Clapham Common, and litter pickers in the streets on the edge of the common.

Comments:

The thing that infuriates me, a lot of time - I see the Veolia people just sitting around in their vans. Quite often you say, ‘Hey, all the bins need emptying’ and they say, ‘Well, we’re here to do something else’… (Stockwell public meeting, 11 September 2013)

We were screaming saying, ’Hey, when there’s nice weather we need the bins cleaning more than just once a day’ because there are several hundred people picnicking in the park and leaving all their rubbish. In the Winter time you hardly need the bins cleaning from one month to the next because no one’s in the park. So that seems just very unresponsive on that level of just maintaining that level of the park. Then there are all kinds of other things like the trees that are planted in the park are never water and a lot of them die off and who deals with that? (Stockwell public meeting, 11 September 2013).

I was having a discussion before all the bidding started, just saying the way you improve the quality of local spaces, you have to have somebody, a paid employee in the space. They’re responsible for everything, you go to them, they get local people to come in and do it. There’s no contracts issued formally necessarily. The grass needs to be cut, cut the grass. How much are you giving him? Well, I’ve got a budget of £10k a year; I’ll give him £50. £50 each time he cuts it, he cuts it six times a year, 12 times a year, £300. The council’s large central contracts discourage making economies at a local level and exclude local firms. Devolved management needs to provide for more local input, rather than supporting big corporations and their shareholders. Email from The Brixton Society

Liability and accountability It’s about accountability isn’t it.? The people who make the final decision about strategy and development, are the people who we can vote in and out in the next election so they ultimately in a position so it is going to be x what you do and the framework really needs to be set up so that the accountability for the people who make the final decisions who can make recommendations but ultimately it is their trousers that are at risk. (Brixton public meeting, 3 September 2013)

If the groups want to take a more active role in the development of that park, we should look at insurance and other liabilities, where do they feature in the process? This is a sticky issue I have. (Stockwell public meeting, 8 October 2013)

Control over buildings and leases . When you try to fundraise for a building they start asking you about how long your lease is, for instance, because you know, National Lottery don’t want to give you a load of money for a building that you’ve got a three year lease on, and that you’re going to get thrown out of. So it’s a standard question for fund givers along with, ‘Are you the freeholder?’ or ‘How long a lease have you got?’ So there seems to be a lot of vagueness about this level three in terms of boundaries. (Stockwell public meeting, 11 September 2013)

At level three with community-led management it talks about sole responsibility and there’s a term here, ‘control over buildings’ and as you made clear, ownership is remaining with Lambeth. Now I think that has to be right actually, I can’t see that Lambeth has any right to transfer ownership. But then that leaves me questioning phrases like, ‘control over buildings’; I don’t see what control… Influence over management, yeah but I don’t see how you’ve got much control if you don’t own it. (Stockwell public meeting, 11 September 2013)

Section 7: Feedback from residents in relation to individual parks

The council received almost 20 proposals from local groups and organisations who would like to be involved in the cooperative parks programme, and there is strong evidence from the consultation feedback that there is a willingness amongst existing groups to get more involved i n the management of their local park or open space. You will find all comments in the appendices 22 but please also see a small selection of comments below.

In addition, we have included some success stories / examples given by residents where community involvement has worked very well. This includes a number of initiatives in small open spaces, which have had a very positive impact on the space.

Getting people involved from the wider community is identified as a particularly important issue – some residents had ideas around how they could recruit, for example young people to get more involved in their local park.

However some residents expressed dissatisfaction / disapproval with existing groups or how things have worked in the past, and there is evidence from the comments that there are tensions between groups in some local areas . We have included some examples to illustrate the kinds of scenarios that can arise very easily.

Comments:

22 Question 2d asks people for ideas of how cooperative management could work in your local park or green space.

Willingness to get involved and support for a local cooperative management group

There are already a number of volunteer groups working within the common and the Rookery. The common has been become run down over the last few years is a lot of maintenance work to be done. The co-operative would take charge of the funds allocated to the common and run it efficiently as a non-profit business, allowing any left over money to be put back into maintaining the common. Almost all other parks in Lambeth have had a new playground except for Streatham Common (Streatham Common, Long questionnaire).

We are very interested in being part of co-operative management, and possibly banding together with other likeminded organisations to provide representatives in such (any cooperative management group would not be able to effectively have an individual from every interest group on the Common, I do not think). Any management plan would need to be made up of individuals that represent the whole suite of park users, sporting only being one. ( Clapham Common , Long questionnaire)

I think Ruskin Park would benefit from co-operative management based on a partnership approach. There are clearly areas where the council should lead, but there is room for greater local management particularly around the cafe area and community gardens. Perhaps residents could lead on improvements to the play area (which now cramped, with not enough space around it for families. I run in the park every day and it would be good to see my views being represented. I don't feel particularly connected at the moment (Ruskin Park, Long questionnaire)

A friends group could monitor maintenance, organise events, manage a website, and promote community involvement in use and maintenance of park including growing. Network rail could incorporate adjacent arches to be a cafe or sports facility and also storage for the park ( Elm Street Open space , Long questionnaire).

Friends of Vauxhall Park and local volunteers do a lot already and should have a significant input into decision making (Vauxhall Park, Long questionnaire).

Previously had an active group and it would be a prime area to pilot this intuitive in coming months - the park itself could use a bit of a spruce up and the local community would happily take that on if given the chance ( Holmewood Gardens , Long questionnaire).

Past and recent projects - examples of how community and Friends groups have improved local parks

My local Park is Loughborough Park, I have been a resident for over 14 years we have tried many things but the burden of responsibility has fallen on a few shoulders due to extreme social problems, confidence of residents, overwhelmed by the task. But now

we have the growing area all poshed up we are using this as a focus and small beginning to create a community of growers users and want to expand this energy through the park. I feel very positive about this (Loughborough Park Long questionnaire).

Hillside Gardens is a good example of a small park which has been changed from a totally neglected space some years ago, to a very well-used, family-friendly space used by all sections of the community now. This has taken years and years of hard, determined work from a dedicated Friends group supported by the Council. It demonstrates the importance of involving local people, but it didn't "just happen" - a lot of people put in a lot of time and energy to make it happen - might be worth consulting with them about where and how to start, what problems they faced, how they tackled fund-raising, etc. (Streatham Green, Long questionnaire).

Kennington Park is my local park. I think cooperative management could work very well because Kennington Park has a very active Friends group which does so much to promote and improve the park. I believe that the Friends have funded or sponsored improvements, adding up to well over £500,000. Recently, two table tennis tables have been installed near the children's playground (paid for by the Friends with a grant from Sport England) and they are proving to be very popular, particularly with my son! There are great plans for the flower garden too, which we found out about recently at a consultation event organised by the Friends (Kennington Park, Long questionnaire).

Ideas about getting a wider group involved:

One idea would be to form 'young friends' groups to regularly work on one aspect to their local park either growing plants or managing a wildlife area in the park. This could happen in Vauxhall Pleasure Gardens in collaboration with Vauxhall City Farm who has experience with school instructive programmes (Vauxhall Pleasure Gardens, Long questionnaire).

Issues identified with current local groups and activities

Some residents were concerned that local groups did not consult the wider community around what changes should be made to a local park or open space. People also complained that local groups, including Friends groups, were not representative and therefore had quite different priorities to other people.

Comments:

The Friends and council largely ignore [our group]. Neither consult the users of or residents around this area who are affected by their decisions. The "friends” and council seem to have many things put into operation without any thought to the upkeep/maintenance of these projects which then fall into disrepair and are unsafe.

With others’ input these follies could have been foreseen/prevented (Comment from Long questionnaire).

Our park needs better arrangements for capturing the views and opinions of non- aligned (i.e. the majority) of users (Comment from Long questionnaire.)

The friends of [my local park] are nice enough but they do not represent the interests of everyone (they have the time to get involved). Also, I'm not convinced they have the 'power' or expertise to drive through real changes. (Comment from Long questionnaire)

[The local park] has already benefitted from the investment of funds raised over a long period by its Friends group. The improvements have been initiated in the light of public consultation among park users. However, the involvement of ward councillors is important to ensure that wider community interests can be represented through the democratic process, since there will be people who challenge the Friends' perception of priorities (Comment from Long questionnaire).

Tensions between existing local groups and the council

Certainly not the present model of community involvement in our local park- it is a private mafia (Comment from Long questionnaire)

My [local area] has several “friends” type groups, not all mutually friendly. However they have much goodwill (Comment from Long questionnaire).

Loughborough Park has had many thousands spent on it against the Friends wishes. The management had meetings in places where the Friends could not see what was going on. Despite strong objections from Rachel Haywood the designated company carried on with plans it had made against everyone's wishes destroying a large part of a 17th century wall at the same time. The park is safer because of a few individuals doing loads of work and not because of the management or the tens of thousands spent on unwanted projects (Loughborough Park, Long questionnaire).

Section 8: Governance – the council’s role

In addition to the council’s overarching/ balancing and monitoring role, it was commented that ultimately the council was responsible for individual parks and open spaces. Even if a community group or cooperative managed the day to day running of a park, if anything went wrong the council and its “democratically elected members” would be accountable for this.

Comments:

Ensuring that decisions are made in the interests of all residents, and that no group can operate independently of the council, however good their intentions to serve the public (Kennington Park, Long questionnaire).

The council remains the democratically accountable body. If too much control is ceded to unelected groups there will be no accountability (Rush Common and Brockwell Park, Long questionnaire)

There needs to be accountability, whatever model is selected. In the end there needs to be a way to get a change if things don't work out (Clapham Common, Long questionnaire)

This will work, so long as the decisions are made under the ultimate control of democratically elected councillors. The input of Friends groups' depends on the quality of their own organisation (Kennington Park, Long questionnaire).

I believe that the local community should be consulted, engaged and take ownership - but only to an extent. I don't think that the Council should abrogate total responsibility to the park users/friends, etc. (Myatt’s Fields, Long questionnaire).

Emphasis should be on co-operative. Not abandoning responsibility or choosing as and when other groups are to be involved. If it's co-operative, then that means truly collaborative at ALL stages of ALL projects/costing etc. (Kennington Park, Long questionnaire).

Section 9: Budgets and Finance

Issues around the budget and finance were most often raised during public meetings. Residents were particularly concerned that the council would not be able provide sufficient money to cooperative management groups, for them to be able to manage the parks well - particularly in light of savings to be made over the coming two years.

As said previously, residents were also suspicious that the cooperative management approach had been proposed, as a way to achieve savings and make use of volunteers as cheap labour.

Residents commented that the council needed to be very clear about how much money was available for individual parks, and how much control cooperative management groups would have over the budget. We heard from local groups that there are particular issues around finding money for running and maintenance costs.

People thought that that there needed greater control over how money generated from the park could be used.

The re-investment of money generated from events and other facilities:

• A subject discussed at a number of public consultation meetings, was the request to re-invest money generated from large commercial events into the local park. The money is currently used in other areas (for example libraries), with a percentage being used to counteract any damage to the park as a result of that particular event. However, a number of residents called for, at least, a higher percentage of the money to be ring-fenced for the park so it could be used for improvements.

• We also received a large number of comments asking for the council to protect parks from being used for large scale events. Many felt that the damage inflicted was sometimes irreversible, especially if left and not dealt with quickly. Some people felt that smaller events would be acceptable, as long as controls were put in place to prevent damage.

• Whether or not events are stopped entirely or whether an increased amount is negotiated for individual parks from events, residents argued for a greater role in determining how those funds are spent. Similarly residents wanted to be able to generate money from other facilities such as the café, renting out sports facilities, or buildings.

• Existing groups told us that a particular challenge was finding money for maintenance costs. More often it was possible to generate funds through grants or Section 106 contributions for specific improvements or facilities in parks.

• However, on the issue of securing money from external sources, a number of people argued that this could lead to parks competing against one another, or at the very least, an unequal distribution of external funds. Certain parks were less able to attract external money – either because of its location or size. Some people warned that smaller green spaces could easily be left behind if there was an over-reliance on external funding.

Comments:

Giving groups a budget/funds / greater role in determining how funds are spent

The council needs to provide sufficient money

How to give those groups proper financial autonomy, and how to give those groups access to other council services with who it is necessary to cooperate to make the parks decent places to visit, e.g. police, schools services etc. (Streatham Common, Long questionnaire).

So communities can have a say but NOT so they have to find all the money. (Ruskin Park, short questionnaire)

I think we need both; community ideas and Council money. (Streatham Common, short questionnaire)

Concern around cuts to the council’s budget We have already had a cut in staff and I do worry about this and it all gets put onto volunteers. Because volunteers are volunteers and people will just drop of the edge of that and you won’t get a consistency. There needs to be people who are responsible there somewhere. What I am saying from what [name] said earlier on is that is this cooperative programme there is this other big monster here which is the cuts and you are saying that they are not necessary together but the cuts are going to impact on something that should really be having more money put into it for it to work. (Brixton public meeting, 3 September 2013)

Let’s look at that we spend the budget to make sure it can be dealt with… the money is gone. We have now got an enlighten approach to manage the parks. Also when you divide up that £77,300 income they have to address that and lots of others. You need to be able to control that purse and if we don’t take on that incredible opportunity we are failing the very very same ethos that we started out with. (Brixton public meeting, 3 September 2013)

Existing groups want to have more control over budgets

Friends' groups also work very hard to raise funds for regenerative projects, and should be allowed to work more closely with the council to make decisions as to how the funds they have raised are used - and should - if possible - be allowed to have a little more control over the spending of the funds they have raised! (Kennington Park, Long questionnaire).

My background is working with a committee of ten to twelve local people who raise money to do bits and pieces and have raised tens of thousands of pounds. The money we spend can only be spent with council approval i.e. what it is spent on and meets the necessary criteria. So does that mean that we would need approval whenever we spend money? (Norwood public meeting, 19 September 2013)

All the time, I am coming back to where does the control lie? It always comes back to the council because they hold the public purse. The only area where we would have

more control would be through money we’ve raised because we have made that agreement with the council. The group can only have more control if they have a funder and we still have to meet the requirements of the funder. (Norwood public meeting, 19 September 2013)

Does this mean it still retains the purse strings ultimately, so you don’t ever really have control? These things cannot be implemented without authority from the Council. What I am getting at is that the Council never loses control. Some areas of control are not negotiable such as public’s access to open spaces. (Norwood public meeting, 19 September 2013)

Finding money for maintenance and running costs

The greatest challenge is that running costs are more difficult to cover if Council resources continue to shrink. Friends groups are better suited to fund-raising for improvements or making occasional planting efforts than to on-going maintenance or caretaking. The significant funders will only give capital funds or money for time-limited projects; they will not fund day-to-day running costs. From submission via email, The Brixton Society

The Friends are conscious of the budget restrictions and cuts to come, and are keen to ensure that some of the park's assets are used to generate income for the park. Without wishing to detract from other leisure priorities across the borough, a dedicated income stream will be essential to the success of this cooperation. Although there are several sources of funding for capital expenditure, it is very difficult to obtain funding for the maintenance of the park. From submission via email, Friends of Larkhall Park Group

Generating money for improvements to the park:

The largest number of suggestions related to re-investing money from commercial events – or a larger proportion of it- back into the local park. This was particularly the case for Clapham Common and Kennington Park.

We also received comments around generating money from the parks’ facilities – using for example, income from sports facilities and ground rent.

Generating money from events to be re-invested into the park:

At present Lambeth treats the common as a cash cow using money from events elsewhere. In future money raised by Clapham Common should stay on Clapham Common. (Email from Vauxhall Conservatives)

… if local communities and Friend Groups are to be incentivised to generate income, support events etc. the committee supports an increase in the percentage of income generated in parks being paid to those parks in which an event is held. (Submission from the Environment and Community Safety Sub-Committee)

Disapproval of commercial event in the public place as half of the park will be used for such event which is on-going. I appreciate the council needs funds but not using this park. (Face to face interview)

Generating money from other sources:

Based on current evidence and our knowledge of what the income is likely to be, we do not feel we wold be in a position to take control of the park in the manner suggested in the information booklet. In order to do so the Friends of Vauxhall Park would need changes to the existing contractual arrangements to divert income from facilities in the park, which includes tennis courts, nursery school and café. This would enable a site manager to be employed to run the park effectively and efficiently, maximising opportunities for coordinating voluntary labour and seeking partnership funding. (Email from Friends of Vauxhall Park)

… we now propose that Lambeth and the Friends should actively seek to let this land to a registered social landlord to build housing, and in turn the landlord would pay ground rent to Lambeth Parks; this rent would be ring-fenced for Larkhall Park. This could possibly allow for the employment of a local park keeper. (Email from Friends of Larkhall Park Group)

Parks do not have equal contributions from external funding e.g. from Section 106

Overall, capital investment may not be a major limitation, because there are potential gains from the Community Investment Levy and Section 106 contributions, and from event income, in addition to occasional Lottery bids. The difficult is that money is not distributed evenly: some parks have more potential for large scale events or are in parts of the borough where more S106 contributions are generated from local developments. Others may be left behind. (Email from The Brixton Society)

Something that can be quickly mentioned here through the Brixton society is that tiny parks or parks that have injured some kind of development in the pass and then came to an abrupt end like Trinity gardens for instance and now it is dead space literature what happens sometimes is that residence who are not part of a friends group organise a street party and I was wondering how we can capitalise on this willingness to survive. Important spaces in Lambeth which other stay dormant or loss their importance. So that is something that maybe parks could bear in mind. (Brixton public meeting, 3 September 2013)

Section 10. Satisfaction with Lambeth’s vision

We asked respondents how satisfied they were with the vision set out in the questionnaire booklet.

The majority of respondents (74%) were satisfied, this comprised of 27% who said they were very satisfied and 47% who said they were satisfied. Only 7% were dissatisfied and 2% very dissatisfied.

Satisfaction with Lambeth’s vision %

50 47 45 40 35 30 27 25 20 15 15 10 7 5 2 1 0 Very satisfied Satisfied Neither satisfied Dissatisfied Very dissatisfied Don't know/no nor dissatisfied opinion

Base=336

Comments around vision:

We received a large number of detailed comments about the vision – please see appendices for the full list of comments.

While we received some positive comments and residents felt that it managed to encompass most of what people would want from their local park or open space, others commented that the vision was too generalised and could not translate into practise.

Residents commented that the vision did not highlight enough around wildlife, nature, or heritage/history.

Several people also commented that parks presented valuable opportunities around learning, education and opportunity – which could have been emphasised more in the vision.

However, residents felt that it would be better if the vision did not include responsibilities to develop local businesses. People also expressed concerns around income generation in this section.

Localisation was another issue highlighted by respondents (that is, more benefits for people living around the park).

Comments:

It’s difficult to know what this will mean in practice but it seems to capture most of what people want from their parks and open spaces (Brockwell Park, Long questionnaire)

One-sentence mission statements rarely manage to encompass everything but this is a good start which is why I've rated 'satisfied' (Brockwell Park, Long questionnaire)

It seems to cover most of what is reasonable to expect, and is a positive aspiration (Kennington Park, Long questionnaire).

I think a vision is all very well but unless it's translated into concrete action it isn't worth anything. So I can't say I'm very satisfied with something that may just be a sop to fob people off (Hillside Gardens, Long questionnaire).

This "vision" is so non-specific that it's impossible to know what it actually means (Clapham Common, Long questionnaire).

It should be a community project for the people who are most concerned by what happens on the Common i.e. the people who live around it (Clapham Common, Long questionnaire).

I am not "very satisfied" because "stimulating the local economy" could be taken to mean "renting out the common for events to get money into Lambeth Council's coffers" (Clapham Common, Long questionnaire).

It would have been better if the vision didn’t work with commercial themes informing it. Parks have nothing to do with business (Clapham Common, Long questionnaire).

Because it fits well with what I think Parks should be, although I'm not sure about 'developing local businesses' (Ruskin Park, Long questionnaire).

Report from Consultation (Cooperative Parks Programme) Part 2 – Capital Investment in parks and open spaces

Format of the report: This section of the report includes an analysis of all feedback and comments received around capital investment – to feed into the council’s three year programme. The first part includes satisfaction and comments with recent improvements to individual parks, with the second part of the report focusing on future and suggested improvements.

Whether respondents had noticed physical improvements in their local park:

We asked respondents if they had seen any physical improvements in their local park or open space in the past five years.

Overall 64% said yes, 28% said no and 8% said don’t know. Respondents had most noticed physical improvements in Ruskin Park (96% yes), Myatt’s Field (86% yes), Clapham Common (82% yes) and Brockwell Park (82% yes).

Analysis by park - improvements most noted in Central area, least in the South

When the results are analysed by individual park, the number of responses were too small for us to carry out reliable analysis. However, when grouped together by area/patch, respondents in the Central area were most likely to notice changes (81%) followed by those in Clapham and Stockwell (73%) and the North (69%).

Respondents in the South were least likely to notice any local improvements, and were significantly below average (44%).

Analysis by demographic group:

When results were analysed by demographic group, we found significant differences by age, ethnic group, whether employed/not employed, religion and housing tenure.

Average = 64%

Higher than average: Lower than average: Retired/ carer/ disability = 87% Private renters = 35% 65 plus = 83% BME groups = 41% Owner occupier = 72% Unemployed = 44% Christian = 49% 34- 64 years = 56% Social housing = 57%

Satisfaction with improvements that have taken place in the local parks

Where respondents had noticed improvements in their local park, we asked how satisfied they were with the improvements (base 205).

Overall 78% were satisfied, including 30% who were very satisfied and 49% fairly satisfied. 12% were dissatisfied.

Satisfaction - Comparison by park/ area: respondents in south least satisfied

When we compared satisfaction by individual park, we found that the number of responses was too small to provide reliable statistics. However, when grouped into areas/ patches, we found significant variation with respondents in the North (90%) and Central patches (79%) most likely to be satisfied, and those in the South least likely to be satisfied (69%).

Satisfaction - Comparison by demographic groups:

We found no significant differences when we analysed by gender, age, ethnic group, disability, employment, religion, housing tenure and sexual orientation.

Comments around satisfaction with recent improvements to parks

Parks users Very satisfied with improvements already been made to parks

People selecting Very satisfied for improvements that have already been made to parks singled out parks such as Brockwell, Kennington and Myatt’s Field Park as being the most improved. There is clearly a connection with higher satisfaction levels in parks that have received investment from funding streams outside of the council such as the Lottery Fund to make large-scale improvements.

Comments:

Kennington Park received the most comments from those who are very satisfied that it has changed from being an unsafe location to a park that people are happy to use.

Because I enjoy using the park now - whereas before I would avoid going there as it felt slightly depressing and certainly unsafe. (Long questionnaire 23 )

Kennington Park has been transformed over the last ten years or so, thanks to the hard work of the Friends group, the dedicated on Veolia staff, the input of volunteers. It’s now a really beautiful green space, and much loved.

In Kennington Park people were happy with facilities such as the flower garden and children’s play area but they wanted to see better maintenance of the exercise equipment.

Flower garden is lovely - such a pleasant place to sit and walk. Children’s play area seems to be a great success - it is heavily used. The fitness trail has been a disappointment - badly maintained and half the equipment gone so far as the "adult" trail is concerned. A shame, I see people using this equipment a lot: individuals, groups, people with personal trainers, and I think that it would be a great benefit to the community to have the equipment kept in a better state and more of it - similar to the outdoor gym equipment in Burgess Park. At a time when we are all worried about public health, the problems of obesity, etc., and when in austere times people cannot afford gym memberships, the more free equipment is available to encourage people to exercise the better.

New facilities, or the restoration of existing facilities are a clear community benefit, but more maintenance funding is needed for projects, such as good drainage of paths, which do not attract outside funders.

Brockwell Park also received many comments from park users who are very satisfied about the general improvements that have been made to the park recently. There has been an on-going improvements programme to the pathways, entrances and buildings in this park funded by the Lottery Fund.

All the improvements have been well implemented and enhance the quality of the park. Amazing improvements. The park has been enhanced for all and shows off its best features. Such a wonderful space.

Myatt’s Field Park has been transformed with £3 million from other funding streams and is now considered a very good park by some of its users.

23 Please note all comments in this section are from respondents to the Long questionnaire

Myatt’s has become one of the best parks I have ever visited!

Ruskin Park was highlighted by some parks users for having a great café and children’s play area which benefits the community.

The café is brilliant and provides a real community hub. The extension of the play area with the ramps and improved pool are great for primary age children.

The area feels much safer and diverse than 10 years ago. Very positive impact on the community spirit.

Clapham Common also received praise for its recent improvements.

Trees, paths, grass seeding, pond maintenance (mount and boating) bandstand - overall these have made a big difference to Common.

Positive comments about improvements in parks where users were “satisfied”

The highest ranking parks in this category included at the top of the list Clapham Common followed by Streatham Common, Kennington Park, Ruskin Park, Brockwell Park and Norwood Park.

Some of the smaller parks and green spaces received praise in this category including Hillside, Woodmansterne, Windmill Gardens, Larkhall Park and Vauxhall Park.

For Streatham Common , users were positive about the improvements to this green space but also used this as an opportunity to point out problems too (there are lots of comments in the dissatisfied and very dissatisfied sections). People have been most positive about the work that’s been done to the Rookery Gardens.

Because although great work has been done, and I’m very glad some investment was made, I have recently seen a more serious decline in the maintenance of the space - litter is terrible suddenly, the loos are never open, and it looks like the land management has been scaled back. I don’t want this decline to continue.

Rookery Gardens need proper knowledgeable care; the common itself is a valued open space - perhaps it could be used more successfully for some sport?

Flower garden looks great, volunteers are involved, regular for people.

Clapham Common scored highest in this category for being well maintained compared to how it used to be managed, however users of the Common would like to see further improvements:

Given the sorry state of the Common 10 years ago, there has been welcome improvement, but there is still some way to go.

I am quite satisfied with the improvements. The fact that a diverse range of improvements have been undertaken indicates that there is a broad plan for the common and all its users.

Fairly satisfied at present, which takes no account of future challenges and reduced income.

It is a joy to see the growth of vegetation around Mount Pond and the wildlife that is being encouraged. Offset by the accumulation of rubbish, which one of the Common users and his sons gather up.

CCMAC has chosen this response because it considers that good progress has been made so far, although it would like to see the decision-making processes streamlined and speeded up.

Ruskin Park café has received further praise along with the bandstand.

The changes/ improvements have really made a difference. We love the cafe and bandstand.

Kids love it and it brings families together. The cafe is also great.

Brockwell Park is considered much improved but there is room for further improvements such as more bins.

Overall the park is now wonderful but there are various niggles, such as why there are so few waste bins now (especially in the summer) and why the dog poo bins have been removed.

In Norwood Park , children’s facilities were considered a highlight of the park. The kids have lots of different equipment to choose from.

The children’s waterpark was a good idea but very hard to maintain and most of the time the water doesn’t work or the area is dirty. Maintenance is low (I saw a smashed bottle in sandpit only last month).

Hillside Gardens was one of our smaller green spaces which was singled out by people for praise.

Have been here only short time, but love the park.

The park is much improved but isn’t perfect - people exercise dangerous dogs in the dog free area with no concern for others - and there seems to be no-one to monitor this and prevent it happening.

Comments from parks users Dissatisfied with improvements to parks

In this category the park/green space with the most dissatisfied users was Streatham Common. People commenting on Streatham Common believed that a range of improvements were required and that it was all down to cutbacks and a lack of investment. Only the Rookery had recently seen any improvements due to work by the Friends group.

Losing Streatham Commons park rangers a few years ago due to financial cutbacks has unquestionably been a major blow to the security and even appearance of the entire area - as was disappointingly predicted by all local community groups and alerted to Lambeth council.

Why does Streatham never get any money?

No significant improvements have taken place and the Council has reduced funding for services.

Because there have been no improvements other than what local group (Friends of Streatham Common) invest in maintaining the Rookery.

The Rookery is lovely - but there are a lot of other areas of Streatham Common that are also desperate for funding/improvement - the children’s play area is dangerous and old fashioned - the paddling pool at the top of the common is rarely filled with water - there are not enough bins on the common - there are not enough activities on the common, kite day is always so popular - we would love to have more activities - the café on the common is very friendly but the food and drinks on offer are very poor quality. I have seen significant investment in other parks in Lambeth and yet the playground, paddling pool, toilets and cafe on Streatham Common are all sadly neglected. There has not been very little. The only good thing is that volunteers have been involved in putting on events and the community gardens. The rookery celebrations were excellent but funded by volunteers.

Dissatisfaction with sports facilities – Brockwell and Ruskin Parks:

Residents commented that Brockwell Park and Ruskin Parks sports facilities could do with further improvements.

Brockwell Park needs a new football pitch as major grass pitch is in very bad condition during winter, no seven a-side goals, pitch becomes like a mud during games because

of bad weather and other pitch is very rough, it’s more like a concrete and is not safe to play on.

The play and sport in Ruskin Park are in poor condition and over many years been badly laid out. Huge investment is required to bring the park up to face the next 50 years.

Sports facilities in Ruskin are classed as secondary by Lambeth, that because they ARE second rate. Use of all facilities has increased a great deal showing there is a demand and a willingness by people to use any facilities. Unfortunately for Lambeth and us, not every user pays the when they should, perhaps because the facilities are secondary.

Dissatisfaction in Clapham Common and Vauxhall Park:

Residents commented that Clapham Common and Vauxhall Park also needed further improvements.

Vauxhall Park has had no major funding, the council will not support our application for Lottery money; we have lost our two full time gardeners due to funding cuts, we were not allowed to access free play equipment as the council refused to maintain it. Most improvement have been achieved by friends and volunteer labour.

A lot of room for improvement! Work was undertaken on "improving" the site used for fun fairs. Id question whether this was really necessary, but seeing it used for purposes that are better aligned to the surrounding community would be more welcome and no doubt, successful.

Smaller green spaces:

Smaller spaces such as St Matthews Church, Eardley Road and Elam Street also received comments about the lack of investment and input from the council.

St Matthews gets the minimum amount of attention. As a small space, it has little or no investment.

It’s been left to rot! A local group have been working on improving the space without distressing the natural habitat. The group want to take ownership and run it for the locals especially the young families, young people and older members within our community. Only thoughts of being marginalized again from the council, police and other more established groups who don’t want to give us the time of day let alone space. Puts us in a weak position when it comes to discussions, making decisions, vision and policy development and planning and execution and monitoring around any open space and parks. (comment about Eardley Road)

Because nothing is done. Notices were put up stating cars were going to be removed from the entrance last Sept. they were- an improvement, and a timber barrier was erected but 11 months on the notices are still on the gate! Such sloppy management. (comment about Elam Street)

Future and suggested improvements in parks and open spaces

Tick box information was gathered around suggested physical improvements using three methods – the short questionnaire, face to face interviews and the youth questionnaire. We also asked for comments – which are particularly detailed and these are included later in the report.

Tick box responses about suggested improvements:

We asked respondents what they would like to improve in their local park or open space – there are strong similarities across the different methods/groups.

Please see the table below for the full breakdown of responses by method.

Short questionnaire: Face to face interviews: Youth questionnaire:

Children’s play area (25%) Children’s play area (24%) Sports equipment (43%) Sports facilities (17%) Sports facility (23%) More trees/flowers (25%) Building improvement (16%) Horticulture (14%) Other (11%) Horticulture (14%) Building improvement (11%) Better entrances or exits Landscape works (10%) Landscape works (5%) (7%) Access or entrances (3%) Access or entrances (3%) Playground (0%)

Overall - Children’s play area was the most ticked improvement

Children’s play area was identified by the highest proportion of respondents for both the short questionnaire and the face to face survey (26% and 24%), followed by sports facilities (17% and 23%).

Sports facilities was the most ticked option in the youth survey (43%).

“Building improvements” and “Horticulture/flower beds” were chosen by around one in eight respondents, with “Landscape works” and “Access/ Better entrances” receiving fewest responses.

Play equipment was the least popular option in the youth survey, with sports equipment being most popular:

Interestingly, for the youth survey, playground facilities were least popular, chosen by none of the respondents (9 years and over), even though adults chose this as the most important improvement. It may be that parents wanted more play equipment for very young children or more equipment and activities suitable for children and young people, including sports type facilities. It could be worth looking more closely at the whole area of facilities and equipment for children, and for what age groups.

When looking at comments submitted by respondents, there were a very large number of comments, almost entirely from Streatham Common users, with the large majority relating to the need for play facilities.

Subgroup analysis – children’s play facilities:

We identified significant differences by gender and ethnic group (face to face only), with an indication of variation by disability/long term condition (face to face only).

Female respondents are more likely than males to identify children’s facilities, as are BME residents. Male residents, White respondents and people with a disability or long term condition were less likely to pick this option.

Face to face interviews – average 25% Above average: Females 30%

BME residents 34%

Average: All respondents: 25%

Below average: Males 16%

White residents 21%

Disabled /long term 16% condition

Short questionnaires – average 25% Above average: Females 31%

Average: All respondents: 25%

Below average: Males 16%

Sports equipment and facilities:

Sports facilities were chosen by almost a quarter of respondents, and was the most popular option (joint with facilities for children) in the face to face survey (24%) and the second most popular option in the short questionnaire (17%).

Subgroup analysis – children’s play facilities:

When we compare by gender, age, ethnicity and disability/long term condition, we found significant differences between age groups and ethnic groups.

Younger respondents (18 to 34 years) were more likely to want sports facilities, compared to average, and over 65s. BME residents were also more likely to want improvements to sport facilities, with White residents being significantly below average.

Face to face interviews – average 24%

Above average: 18 to 34 year olds 30%

BME residents 32%

Average: All respondents: 24%

Below average: White residents 18%

Short questionnaire – average 18%

Above average: 18 to 34 year olds 26%

BME residents 32%

Average: All respondents: 18%

Below average: 65 years plus 16%

Comparison by park – sports facilities:

The importance of sports and fitness equipment is reflected in the comments, with particularly importance identified by Kennington Park users (fitness and gym equipment), and Brockwell and Ruskin Park users. However we found no significant differences between parks or area/patch, when we analyse tick box responses by park.

Horticulture Horticulture was the third most picked option across methods (including the youth questionnaire where “more tress/flowers” was second most popular option), with approximately one in eight (14%) selecting as an area for improvement.

We found no significant differences by gender, age, ethnic group or disability. However, non Lambeth residents were more likely to pick (20%) than Lambeth residents (11%).

Building improvements:

This option was picked by 16% short questionnaires and 11% face to face interviews (3 rd and 4 th picked options respectively).

We found no variation between demographic groups but, as for “horticulture” we did identify a significant difference between non-Lambeth and Lambeth residents. Lambeth residents were less likely to pick building improvements as an important issue (7% compared to 17%). This result was also reflected in our analysis by area/patch, where 21% out of borough respondents picked this option compared to 6% in North area/patch.

Landscape works and Access or park entrance:

These were options selected by fewest respondents, chosen by only 3% for access, and 5% or 10% for landscape works (face to face survey and short questionnaire respectively).

We found no significant differences for access (numbers too small). However for landscape works, we found variation by gender, disability, and whether a Lambeth Friend of Parks or not.

In the comments – landscape improvements were suggested in Kennington, Streatham and Brockwell Parks.

Face to face interviews: Short questionnaire:

Above average: Friend 13%

Females 8% Disability 16%

Average: All respondents: 5% 10%

Below average: Males 2%

Investment in Parks – comments: For this question, it was decided that comments should be divided into individual parks. Please find selected comments below – with full comments in the Appendices.

AGNES RILEY GARDENS

• Residents wanted the playground improved in Agnes Riley Gardens. • Residents also wanted a nature path incorporated into the park.

Playground

Agnes Riley (and please a new space for Streatham Hill residents e.g. improve Holmewood Garden - THINK innovative, modern playground facilities like at Brockwell Park (DO NOT follow the model of Triangle playground on Tooting Common which has been very badly done and no longer serves for younger children who need swings and slides and roundabouts and climbing frames etc.) table tennis, fitness circuit, pop up cafe, stage for outdoor theatre/music etc. in the summer. (Agnes Riley Gardens, long questionnaire)

Safer proper gates on the children's play area. Gates don't close properly in children's play area. Fences for football pitches are not high enough and balls get regularly kicked into the playground where the small children play, this is dangerous. The water feature gate doesn't close, this is dangerous. (Agnes Riley Gardens, short questionnaire)

I am not sure that sand pits and paddling pools are a good idea in our climate. They are not generally very hygienic. Better to invest in one or two excellent ones that are worth a trip or day out to than small yucky ones taking up vital space in our small local green spaces! (Agnes Riley Gardens, long questionnaire)

The closest to us at present are Agnes Riley Gardens which would benefit from improving the playground. At the moment it is a vast tarmac area which is quite depressing. Perhaps something more like Brockwell Park's new playground would be an option. (Agnes Riley Gardens, long questionnaire)

Updated equipment and sand pit. (Agnes Riley Gardens, long questionnaire)

Nature path

A small nature trail could be incorporated in wooded areas for example and planting for bees and butterflies...lavender hedges vastly improve the look and smell of our parks or a herb garden? Rosemary and thyme are handy! (Agnes Riley Gardens, long questionnaire)

A gym and nature path. (Agnes Riley Gardens, long questionnaire)

Other comments

Agnes Riley Gardens is well looked after but need a bit of cleaning in the play area. (Face to face interviews) Winter's months I wish they'd display a closing time at the gate as I was locked inside this park one day. (Face to face interviews) Toilet area needs improvement. The pond in the middle is nasty and there are germs in it. It is not safe for the kids to there. (Face to face interviews)

BROCKWELL PARK

• From the comments received, we found that sports facilities in the park received the most comments. People suggested an outdoor gym , and various other activities such as football, BMX, organised activities for older people . • We received quite a few comments around having improved café facilities (including better use of Brockwell House), and generally better provision for refreshments in the park. • The paths have fallen into disrepair creating uneven surface, which can be difficult for residents in wheelchairs and other people with mobility issues. • The planting of more trees and planting of flowers and plants was raised in the comments by a number of residents. • Improvements to the pond, more sustainable planting and more flowers. • Residents also wanted to improve the maintenance and litter collection at Brockwell Park. • There were complaints about the toilets not being very clean. • Keeping dogs under control was also mentioned. • As above the use of Brockwell House, for things like social clubs, café, nature walks and talks .

Sports and fitness:

Outdoor gym

Outdoor gym equipment because the playground area is used a lot by personal trainers and they really need their own space, and a space (maybe basketball courts) that could be used by young people as there is nothing for them. (Brockwell Park, short questionnaire)

An outdoor gym needs to be added. Whilst the fitness things around the park are great, they are spread too far around and the outdoor gyms that other parks have are much better and appeal to a different audience. (Brockwell Park, long questionnaire)

An outdoor gym would be fab! (Brockwell Park, short questionnaire)

Sports facilities – football, tennis, bicycle hire

We are a local football club called Dynamo, based at Brockwell Park and we would like to consider an opportunity to improve an old football pitch that has not been in use for at least 20 years, and build new 3G astro facility for community use and establish funding for that from the Football Foundation. (Brockwell Park, long questionnaire)

I’m not sure that people are aware of all of the facilities for example the tennis courts. I only know they are there because I have stumbled across them. So I guess it needs more publicity of the facilities to bring more people into the park (Interview with Brockwell Park user)

I'd like to see some sort of bicycle hiring facility as they do in Dulwich Park. This will encourage adults and children to cycle around the park to enjoy the scenery and more importantly, get some exercise. (Brockwell Park, long questionnaire)

Brockwell Park - it is good to display sport equipment in the park to get everyone in gym. Any other thing that can help local residents would be better. I have noticed that kids in London are not doing physical activities and are very obese. (Face to face interview)

Other organised activities in the park:

A skate park by the BMX track would encourage older children and young people to use Brockwell Park more than they do. (Brockwell Park, long questionnaire)

More 'organised' sport/ exercise activities for older people. (Brockwell Park, long questionnaire)

More physical activities organised in the park. (Brockwell Park, long questionnaire)

Café

Better cafes: One can't get a decent coffee in Brockwell Hall. Thank goodness for the Lido cafe! I hate to say it but Wandsworth Common & Battersea Park in our neighbouring Borough, while not up to the Lido, are pretty good examples of how park cafés can be quite decent. (Brockwell Park, long questionnaire)

Whilst I think Brockwell Park is near perfect, I would like Brockwell House to be an amazing café venue (I know improvements are on-going but it would be fab to get the Lido cafe involved). (Brockwell Park, short questionnaire)

The cafe needs updating. It’s a shame the house isn’t fully utilised for social clubs, health and fitness classes, meeting rooms, wedding venue and hired out to make money. (Brockwell Park, short questionnaire)

I think the cafe in Brockwell Park could be used better. Perhaps for gallery space, studio facilities, library etc. most of the time it is shut. (Brockwell Park, short questionnaire)

A cafe by the new play area would help turn the area into a park to visit, wander around and then grab something to eat. (Brockwell Park, long questionnaire)

More cafes and a better restaurant (more than 1 if possible) inside the park. (Brockwell Park, long questionnaire)

There should be further and better provision of refreshments in the park. (Brockwell Park, short questionnaire)

Maybe the cafe could be improved. (Brockwell Park, short questionnaire)

Wildlife, tree planting and natural play

As a horticulturist I think Brockwell Park has improved but some or many areas need more flower meadows, prairie and planting. (Brockwell Park, short questionnaire)

More interesting sustainable planting in the smaller green spaces e.g., like in Rush Common and Holmewood Gardens. (Brockwell Park, long questionnaire)

Do some major work in the pond at the Tulse Hill entrance. To have some water will improve wildlife. Currently dry. (Brockwell Park, long questionnaire)

Increase planting for wildlife and areas for natural play and continue tree planting. (Brockwell Park, long questionnaire)

I would like to see more wild flowers to encourage wildlife and insects etc. (Brockwell Park, short questionnaire)

Herb garden, veg patch, an arrangement of different flowers, more ferns. (Brockwell Park, long questionnaire)

More nature walks/ talks using the main building. (Brockwell Park, long questionnaire)

There should be more landscape. (Brockwell Park, long questionnaire)

More flowers. (Brockwell Park, short questionnaire)

Improve the unkempt trees. (Brockwell Park, long questionnaire)

Toilet maintenance, litter collections and bins

Regular maintenance of toilets and making sure that they are open at weekends and busy times. Ensuring when events are on provision is made to keep the loos open e.g. performances of plays at the performance space next to the hall. The toilets regularly closed during the intervals even with an event starting at 7.15. (Brockwell Park, long questionnaire)

Better toilet facilities. The toilets in both parks are often filthy and unusable. The toilets at Brockwell Park playground are often so dirty with water flooded across the floor; I would not want to take a child in there! (Brockwell Park, short questionnaire) More rubbish bins and larger ones too, are needed in summer months. (Brockwell Park, long questionnaire)

Clean up bushes around the park; there’s too much rubble and other rubbish. I see pruning on trees and bushes but the rubbish is ignored. (Brockwell Park, short questionnaire)

Improve toilets. They are often dirty, lack soap and hot water. (Brockwell Park, long questionnaire)

More bins. (Brockwell Park, long questionnaire)

Park patrolling, advice and quiet areas

Enforce the bye laws. Cyclist are a real menace in are not prescribed to them. Better recognition of section 17 of the crime and disorder act. Some form of the old Park keepers need to be re-introduced not only to control those who are out of order but also to act as a positive help to visitors. I have even met people who have got lost in Brockwell Park. (Brockwell Park, long questionnaire)

Dogs must be under control, preferably on leads, certainly not shitting where we're eating. Holland Park has a dog toilet - essentially a sand pit. And picnic tables, away from the dog toilet! (Brockwell Park, long questionnaire)

As mentioned before, the re-introduction of a park ranger service or other form of authority is essential to help preserve facilities and make the park safer. (Brockwell Park, long questionnaire)

Improve signage regarding dos and don’ts. (Brockwell Park, long questionnaire)

Improve people's behaviour. (Brockwell Park, long questionnaire)

Too many dogs. (Brockwell Park, long questionnaire)

Access, opening hours and pathways

Park roads are narrow that is difficult for pedestrian and those using push bicycles. (Brockwell Park, long questionnaire).

Complete the work of repairing footpaths - there are still lots of holes and cracks. (Brockwell Park, long questionnaire)

Open longer hours or railings removed for 24/7n access- just like a common. (Brockwell Park, long questionnaire)

Park opened for longer hours with appropriate lighting. (Brockwell Park, long questionnaire)

Wheelchair-friendly - I have 2 children disabled. (Brockwell Park, long questionnaire)

At the Tulse Hill end some of the pathways that are further away from the main entrances have fallen into disrepair. I have a racer bike and it's really hard to ride it in parts when the surface is in disrepair. If it was repaired it would make it easier for people that have tyres so not just me, wheelchairs and buggies (Interview with Brockwell Park user)

Community events, initiatives for young people and children’s facilities

More community events, more initiatives to get young people involved (the greenhouses etc. do a fantastic job but it's not very well advertised and I feel doesn't sufficiently engage the kids who actually need to be engaged. (Brockwell Park, long questionnaire)

An increase in the size of the children's play area as it’s so well used and needs more! Two 'baby' swings are not sufficient and there are after queues. Lambeth has experienced a baby boom - this needs to be reflected in facilities. (Brockwell Park, long questionnaire)

Older children's adventure play is needed. The current playground is oversubscribed and we need another one for older kids. (Brockwell Park, short questionnaire) Have another playground - perhaps by the Herne Hill gate. (Brockwell Park, long questionnaire)

Skate park for older children. (Brockwell Park, short questionnaire)

Support for local businesses

The traders along Norwood Road opposite the park would really benefit from having a small gate, like the one by Rosendale Road, at the Croxted Road junction. This would

significantly increase footfall to what has always been a struggling or failing business area. (Brockwell Park, long questionnaire)

CLAPHAM COMMON

• Residents were most concerned about the landscape and wildlife in the Clapham Common – we received a number of comments in relation to the “landscape infrastructure” including drainage, soil and grass improvements. More planting and improved management of trees was also suggested, as well as more done to support wildlife and overall biodiversity. The importance of the Clapham Common Master Plan was mentioned by a number of respondents. • Some residents commented that large scale and commercial events were a threat to the “fabric” of the Common. We received a number of comments asking for fewer large events. • Residents also suggested using money generated from events to be re-invested in the common. • People suggested re-instating wardens to patrol the park – but rather than improving safety and security, it was mainly suggested to monitor the behaviour of users of the common. For instance, clearing rubbish and litter, that dogs are being managed appropriately (including dog mess). • Other issues included improved toilet facilities , cleaner and more modern changing rooms, improvements to the café, and better maintenance of paths. Several residents felt that the bandstand looked neglected, and that the play area also needed attention.

The importance of preserving and supporting landscape and wildlife

Proper management of ponds, restoring balance between nature management, visual enjoyment and fishing. At present Mount Pond and Eagle Pond are totally dominated by fishermen, particularly in the summer. Many pay little or no attention to the wellbeing of other people or the environment, some people erecting tents to spend the night there. (Clapham Common, short questionnaire)

The Common needs basic maintenance. The jogging track and other paths need re- seeding with grass seed. They are turning the Common into a mud pit. In years gone by, Lambeth used to renovate and re-seed them, putting simple stakes which were wired together to protect until the grass was up. It was not rocket science, but it worked. (Clapham Common, short questionnaire)

Excellent work has been done to increase the bio-diversity of Clapham Common. I would love it to continue. I also think that many of the paths are degraded and need resurfacing. Thought should be given to the numerous routes for the public, created by joggers running on the grass. (Clapham Common, short questionnaire)

We want to move towards implementation of the Clapham Common Master Plan, so that the Common fulfils its historic character as a wild, uncultivated open space that is a resource for all the different kinds of people that live and work around it. (Clapham Common, long questionnaire)

Particular attention needs to be paid to the upgrading of the landscape infrastructure. In addition, a number of projects need to be completed, and there is an urgent need to improve/remove derelict buildings. (Clapham Common, long questionnaire) The 'fabric' of the Common: drainage, soil, structure, grass improvements, tree planting, path surfaces, creation of the vision set out in the CC master plan of 2007. (Clapham Common, long questionnaire)

Better support for wildlife including possible Wetlands, threatened insects (e.g. attracting bees) - lucky to be in London with other bodies able to provide guidance. (Clapham Common, long questionnaire)

… and horticultural or flowerbed improvements …. (Clapham Common, short questionnaire)

More trees planted:

Better maintenance of paths, a year-on-year management plan following the Master Plan ideas, a tree management plan to implement tree strategy, more biodiversity projects. (Clapham Common, long questionnaire)

More trees and landscaping round edges to conceal traffic and stop it from being essentially a giant roundabout. (Clapham Common, long questionnaire)

More trees could be planted generally. (Clapham Common, long questionnaire)

More new trees planted. (Clapham Common, long questionnaire)

Better overall maintenance of the common and utilities in the common

I would improve the maintenance of Clapham Common. I am concerned that the very fabric of the Common is deteriorating from excessive use in several places. More signage on the Common itself, explaining how it is maintained and the damage that can be caused by various activities might help as would the on-the-spot enforcement of penalties for people who breach the Common bylaws. (Clapham Common, short questionnaire)

The main play area on Clapham common could do with a complete overhaul - something like Brockwell Park would be fantastic. (Clapham Common, long questionnaire)

More funding needs to be provided for maintenance such as repairs to footpaths, replacement bins, and toilets. (Clapham Common, short questionnaire)

Events and festivals

Fewer events:

An end to sporting events that make most of the Common inaccessible at weekends, an end to "festivals" which few local residents attend and which the existing infrastructure cannot support and that create pollution on a large scale (noise, litter, anti-social behaviour etc.) and the introduction of a program of events targeted at the interests of the surrounding community. (Clapham Common, long questionnaire)

Prohibiting activities that damage the Common and giving very careful consideration to the fabric of the Common whenever granting permission to use the Common for commercial purposes, for example the recent SW4 event on the Common caused extensive damage to the grass on the Common. (Clapham Common, long questionnaire)

The Friends and the Council are preparing a joint bid to the HLF to restore the flower garden. What would improve the park would be fewer events such as Oktoberfest, which take up a large part of the park for several weeks and leave the ground in poor condition. (Clapham Common, short questionnaire)

I do not think the big events like South West Four are suitable for Clapham Common. I am not against events, but this event is of an ever wider scale and I wonder whether that is actually suitable. (Clapham Common, long questionnaire)

The number and size of events on the common have become untenable. It is not fun anymore to walk on the common for so many days in the year. (Clapham Common, long questionnaire)

Fewer big commercial events. (Clapham Common, long questionnaire)

No more outdoor events. (Clapham Common, long questionnaire)

Reinvestment of money from events into the park:

Overall evidence of better investment in the facility and complete transparency on the use of profits generated from events on the Common - 100% of which should be reinvested. (Clapham Common, long questionnaire)

Retention for resident and visitor use as an open space, particularly in summer, not used as a ‘cash cow’ for Lambeth Council. (Clapham Common, short questionnaire)

More and bigger rubbish bins, better litter picking

Large strategically placed garbage bins, ideally set to facilitate re-cycling at least at 4 or 5 locations around the Common, four large hard-stands - North, South, East & West - with a large communal barbecue on each, and with a water supply. Put in some drainage to the area adjacent to the Tube tower near Clapham South. (Clapham Common, long questionnaire)

Keep the Common clean - better litter-picking and refuse disposal, imposition of fines for fouling etc. (Clapham Common, long questionnaire)

Less litter - some people using disposable BBQs leave rubbish behind. (Clapham Common, long questionnaire) Sadly, bigger rubbish bins needed and crow proof. (Clapham Common, short questionnaire)

More litter bins. (Clapham Common, long questionnaire)

Improved toilets and changing facilities

I would add public facilities to today’s standard – changing rooms and above all toilets (the mark of a civilised society). (Clapham Common, short questionnaire)

Improved or new changing facilities for sports teams on the common. I know there are already thoughts on this. (Clapham Common, long questionnaire)

Toilets, western (The Avenue) play area, changing rooms need refurbishment. (Clapham Common, long questionnaire)

… and to enhance existing facilities such as changing rooms and better toilets. (Clapham Common, short questionnaire)

Cleaner and more modern addition of changing facilities for tennis courts. (Clapham Common, long questionnaire)

More public conveniences needed for people spending hours in the park. (Clapham Common, short questionnaire)

Toilets and I facilities, sports, changing rooms all desperately need work. (Clapham Common, short questionnaire)

Toilets at both Clapham and Brockwell are needed/in need of renovation!! (Clapham Common, long questionnaire)

Better toilet facilities. (Clapham Common, long questionnaire)

Patrolled use of the park and designated areas to monitor behaviour/ protect common

Have a few areas where people can light barbecues. Eating outdoors is a great family/friends activity and should be encouraged, not banned. It is ridiculous to cite "damage to the grass" as a reason for banning BBQs when the council willingly and actively permits organisers of large events to churn up great swathes of the Common. (Clapham Common, long questionnaire)

I have already raised my concerns regarding safety and environmental health. I think rangers/parks police would be a very important and beneficial improvement for the entire community. (Clapham Common, long questionnaire)

I would make sure the football pitches were not 'over-used'. I would also fine the footballers for every plastic bottle they leave on the ground and as previously stated I would bring back wardens especially on weekends in the summer. (Clapham Common, long questionnaire)

We need more hands on staff. We have one. The Rangers (one, two) need to be reinstated. Educated contractors (horticulture, wildlife management) would be a bonus. (Clapham Common, long questionnaire)

Cycle paths vs. footpaths - clear distinction; use of the Common for all vs. use by those in the immediate community. (Clapham Common, long questionnaire)

Management of use by dog-owners - dogs on leads or a dedicated area where they may be allowed off leads. (Clapham Common, long questionnaire)

More sports and fitness equipment

Clapham Common is used for a variety of different events, sports, recreational and entertainment therefore there is wear and tear on the land. Good landscape management would help to minimise the damage because everyone wants to enjoy this wonderful space that’s so near the centre of London. I have lived here for 30 years and have seen many events (even back in the late 70’s early 80’s horse shows with International riders (e.g. Harvey Smith). So long may the common be enjoyed by all, but with good management. (Clapham Common, short questionnaire)

If you do implement some sports facilities in Clapham Common may I suggest you include them close to the street so people can feel safe using them throughout the winter? I really just want a bigger chin-up bar!!! (Clapham North, short questionnaire)

To add leisure equipment, more activities during summer time (Zumba or fitness club etc.) In other countries you can find fitness machines in parks that could be a good idea. (Clapham Common, short questionnaire)

An open air gym would be brilliant. (Clapham Common, short questionnaire)

I think the skate park could be amazing if it was sufficient. It’s too small. There are also plans to redevelop the basketball court and it’s in process so I think that’s really good. I think that there is a lot that can be done with the Common. (Interview with Clapham Common user)

Café

The café near the bandstand could do with a facelift. The rustic nature of tables and chairs outside is great (would not want to see that change too much) but internally the cafe needs some improvement and /or opening up the inside to the outside. (Clapham Common, long questionnaire)

The cafe building needs improvement (toilets in particular) - but people running the cafe do an excellent job. (Clapham Common, long questionnaire)

More places and coffees with food. (Clapham Common, long questionnaire)

KENNINGTON PARK

• Improved fitness facilities (including bar equipment) were identified as a particularly important area for improvement. More recently the equipment has become very well used by local residents who have formed an informal network of users. Suggestions included the up grade of the existing wooden equipment with facilities of a higher quality. • Some residents did not want large events in Kennington Park, which caused damage to the grass . People attending the public meeting also suggested the re-investment of money from commercial events to be used for improvements to the park. • Residents were concerned that the park was being used for drug dealers and street drinkers . • People suggested a flower garden and improved planting . • Also mentioned were improved litter collection, toilets .

Sports and fitness facilities

We received a large number of comments from questionnaires (29) calling for improve fitness facilities. Members of the “Kennington Family” also attended the public meeting at St Agnes Church – this is an informal network of local residents using the equipment, and who were keen to identify ways to obtain funding to update the equipment. Improve the fitness trail and add outdoor gym equipment as in Burgess Park people have created short-cut paths in a couple of places that have destroyed the grass. This needs to be rectified, temporarily fence off the affected areas and re-seed/turf and keep an eye on this going forward. (Kennington Park, long questionnaire)

The usage has likely been fuelled by the growing interest in Crossfit and BarStarzz which fitness trends with focus on body weight exercises. Unfortunately the outdoor gym in Kennington park old and has clearly been worn out by the heavy usage. I would like to see it be redeveloped using more durable materials similar to the outdoor gyms seen in the photos attached. View the following video to get a glimpse of what a modern outdoor gym in park should resemble. (Email from outdoor gym equipment – Kennington Park)

As an exercise specialist I am disappointed by the lack of fitness equipment available at such a large space - weights like in Burgess Park and cardio equipment. Better safety and fencing so dogs don't 'mess' where we lay and sit up or stretch. (Kennington Park, short questionnaire)

I would like to see all of the equipment updated because the wooden apparatus keeps breaking and causing splinters, which is dangerous for anyone using the equipment. (Kennington Park, short questionnaire)

A significant upgrade to the training equipment in the park; it’s not versatile, durable nor colourful (Kennington Park, long questionnaire).

Physical fitness area and more equipment are needed in the park for all age groups to keep fit. (Kennington Park, short questionnaire)

The fitness area - improve and fix the pull up and parallel bars. Get more equipment. (Kennington Park, short questionnaire)

Improve the old uncared for equipment that has a large amount of use. (Kennington Park, short questionnaire)

The fitness trail needs to be more exciting and inviting. (Kennington Park, short questionnaire)

We need more well maintained adult exercise equipment. (Kennington Park, short questionnaire)

Improve the fitness and training equipment. (Kennington Park, short questionnaire)

Metal pull up bars and renovated apparatus. (Kennington Park, short questionnaire)

Fitness trail (pull-up, dip bars). (Kennington Park, short questionnaire)

New fitness equipment. (Kennington Park, long questionnaire)

Fewer large commercial events

No more large-scale commercial events purely for financial gain for the Council.

Over the past few years, the beautiful improvements to Kennington Park have been jeopardised by the increasing number of large-scale events agreed to by Lambeth's events department. These events include Portugal Day, which has become too big for the park and the Oktoberfest beer festival. The infrastructure to the park is damaged considerable during these types of events. Oktoberfest is purely commercial enterprise, with no local connection or interest, is noisy, centred on consuming large quantities of alcohol, requires articulated lorries to erect and take down and left the park considerably damaged last year. The only events in Kennington Park allowed should be: small-scale, relevant to the local area/population and not-for-profit. Any fees raised during such event should be allocated directly to Kennington Park. Green spaces and parks should not be seen as money-making environment by Lambeth Council. They are precious commodities for all to enjoy, free of charge, to relax or pursue healthy outdoor activities. (Kennington Park, long questionnaire).

Kennington Park, my local park, is used for a lot of large events and these can be very noisy and disruptive for regular park users. I think these events should be kept to a minimum and restricted to a few days, rather than weeks. This would be a big improvement. The Oktoberfest, for example, is around for a very long period and draws thousands of people to the park that are basically there to get drunk. The ground has still not recovered from last year's Oktoberfest. (Kennington Park, long questionnaire)

No longer have the park used for so many money making activities which remove a large part of the open spaces to non-paying members of the public. This has become a real issue this summer with various commercial operations taking over one of two open spaces for large chunks of the summer. Apart from depriving us of open space, they are noisy, create litter and leave the park in poor condition when they depart. (Kennington Park, long questionnaire)

Fewer commercial events; The Beer Festival (just coming for its 2nd year) is a bad fit for our park. Heavy consumption of alcohol in a small family space is very inappropriate and it lasts for over two weeks! (Kennington Park, long questionnaire)

No more beer festivals please or fete parks as they completely ruined the grass and local people may not use them. It may mean money for the council but locally it's not beneficial. (Kennington Park, long questionnaire)

The park is lovely and well maintained. Have less events playing loud music late at night and so disturbing local residents would be my suggestion for an improvement. (Kennington Park, short questionnaire)

Less events, especially in Autumn when the ground is damp as this results in substantial long-term damage to the grass. (Kennington Park, short questionnaire)

Keep an eye on excessive use of the park for events - e.g. last year's beer festival. (Kennington Park, long questionnaire)

Repair the grass and pathways after large event immediately after. (Kennington Park, long questionnaire)

No large, inappropriate commercial events (Kennington Park, long questionnaire)

Park security – park used by drug dealers

Improve the security. There are lots of people using dangerous things there, including during the day when I go there with my children. (Kennington Park, long questionnaire)

Ensure that the covered seating in the Flower Garden does not become a rendezvous for drugs dealers - e.g. with CCTV. (Kennington Park, long questionnaire)

Security should be improved. There are drug addicts people in the park. Tackling the issue of the street drinkers. (Kennington Park, long questionnaire)

Bring back site specific park warden. (Kennington Park, long questionnaire)

Wildlife and landscape

Flower garden/ improved planting:

Flower Garden restoration - this could be a wonderful amenity for the neighbourhood but at present although well maintained tends to be the haunt of drinkers (Kennington Park, long questionnaire)

It would now be very good if the enclosed garden could be improved as a local amenity and somewhere pleasant and safe for people to use. (Kennington Park, short questionnaire)

I would like to see more greenery. I’ve always like flowers and I love greenery and green stuff like plant growing. I’m not an exercise person; I’m more of a picnic, blanket and sandwich person. I’d always be happy to see a functioning, sustainable cafe in the park or near the park. And toilets! Please! I’d buy a cappuccino to use the café’s toilets. (Interview with Kennington Park user)

I would like to see some native bluebells somewhere in the area. This is one relatively cheap possibility for the site. (Kennington Park, long questionnaire)

Kennington Park needs money to re-plant and re-organise the flower garden. (Kennington Park, long questionnaire)

It would be great to have open days and a vegetable patch to teach the community how to grow their own food (Kennington Park, long questionnaire).

The flower beds are full of weeds and the plants are uncared for. (Kennington Park, short questionnaire)

I am pleased about the plans to improve the walled garden. (Kennington Park, long questionnaire)

Toilet provisions and cleaning

Improve public toilets, recycling facilities and maybe introduce composting facilities and products (e.g. compost bags made on site for sale to park users). (Kennington Park, long questionnaire)

Improved public toilet provision. (Kennington Park, long questionnaire)

Better toilets! (Kennington Park, short questionnaire)

General cleanliness:

There are a lot of ignored maintenance tasks. Fences left broken, dog facilities broken, rubbish not collected as frequent as it used to be collected. (Kennington Park, short questionnaire)

Better safety and fencing so dogs don't 'mess' where we lay and sit up or stretch. (Kennington Park, short questionnaire)

… rubbish not collected as frequent as it used to be collected. (Kennington Park, short questionnaire)

The park to be kept cleaner. (Kennington Park, long questionnaire)

Children’s play area

The playground requires new equipment and the pavement there isn't good. (Kennington Park, long questionnaire)

At the moment the children's play area is not always well looked after. (Kennington Park, short questionnaire)

Playground still has plenty room for improvement. (Kennington Park, long questionnaire)

One o'clock club for the young mums and their children. (Kennington Park, short questionnaire)

Other comments

Kennington Park extension: get rid of the cricket pitch and nets, the pitch has very rarely been used and the nets are a health and safety disaster; properly mend the fence where a car came through 2 years ago, the temporary measures were destroyed within weeks; get rid of, or replace with smaller growing plants, the flower beds if no maintenance budget can be found; mend the lighting across the footpath, only one of approx. eight lights works; enlarge and improve the dog exercise area; more seating; improve general maintenance, compared to the main park it is ignored....I could go on..... (Kennington Park, long questionnaire)

I have just participated in creating Friends of St Mark Churchyard. We would like to develop the Oval Farmer's Market so to make it a Saturday where people can socialize. If we could have the resources to sustain that activity by looking after the green space, refurbish the children area, have seating areas and so forth, and just bring some colours in that space and to the Oval. (Kennington Park, long questionnaire)

The cafe is much loved and would benefit from refurbishment. (Kennington Park, short questionnaire)

LARKHALL PARK

• The main issues raised were the need for improved landscaping and planting , with more flowers/ greenery, and more children’s activities . • Residents were also concerned with the security at Larkhall Park. • There were also comments around the lack of toilet facilities, and better facilities for litter, rubbish and dogs .

Landscape and wildlife – management of park features

Even grounds - landscape - better green space which includes flowers/ gardening. (Larkhall Park, long questionnaire)

Larkhall Park requires more planting etc. to bring it up to the standard of other established parks, such as Vauxhall Park and Myatt's Field. (Larkhall Park, short questionnaire)

Work to improve aesthetics. (Larkhall Park, short questionnaire)

The park is a bit boring. (Larkhall Park, short questionnaire)

More flowers around. (Larkhall Park, short questionnaire)

Activities for children

I have two young children and play areas are often in poor repair. (Larkhall Park, short questionnaire)

More activities for children without their parents. (Larkhall Park, long questionnaire)

Bigger playground for children aged 2-10. (Larkhall Park, short questionnaire)

More activities for children and public. (Larkhall Park, long questionnaire)

Community activities/ sports days. (Larkhall Park, long questionnaire)

Park patrolling and security

Some control over dogs owners hanging around and using playground for meeting place. (Larkhall Park, long questionnaire)

Redevelop car park for housing in order to provide income for employing a park keeper. (Larkhall Park, long questionnaire)

More security so that less people use the park to consume drinks during the evenings. (Larkhall Park, long questionnaire)

It should be closed at night to avoid people using drugs there (Larkhall Park, long questionnaire).

Having a toilet in the park:

A better and bigger playground and toilets. (Larkhall Park, short questionnaire)

A toilet is needed and more cafes. (Larkhall Park, short questionnaire)

Public toilet in a park! (Larkhall Park, long questionnaire)

Dogs

Also fresh water for dogs. (Larkhall Park, short questionnaire)

Less dog poop. (Larkhall Park, short questionnaire)

Toilets, litter and recycling

Toilets, litter bins which you can't find in Larkhall Park. (Larkhall Park, long questionnaire)

Better recycle space. (Larkhall Park, long questionnaire)

Activities for older people

Activities for elderly people. (Larkhall Park, long questionnaire)

Sports

Independent sports, facilities and safety and pw control. (Larkhall Park, short questionnaire)

MYATT’S FIELDS PARK • The biggest issue for Myatt’s Fields from residents’ comments appeared to be around planting and flowerbeds . People felt these were in a “state of neglect” and needed restoring. • Residents felt that Myatt’s Fields Park needed to be cleaner and the buildings could be improved. The café was another area for improvement. • Other areas mentioned for improved were Children’s areas and sports facilities in the park, the clearing away of rubbish and better maintenance .

Plants/ flowers

Rhododendron area has long been neglected. It is overgrown with other trees such as holly, elder, ivy, and sycamore seedlings etc., which have mostly not been removed when they should have been. The remaining rhododendrons are crowded with this extra growth and have never been given proper treatment, such as proper ericaceous fertilizer, removal of dead flowers to benefit future growth and so on. It is never watered

when it needs it so plantings are stunted. Weed growth is never removed. The grass seems to have become coarse and lumpy and is cut in a rough fashion so that it is no longer a smooth cared-for green area. (Myatt’s Fields, short questionnaire)

The 'new' flowerbeds at the top end of the park and round the bandstand is in an appalling state of neglect. Local residents offered to improve matters by tidying, cutting, weeding etc. but were turned down by the people who work in the yard. The ‘new’ flowerbeds are an absolute eyesore especially when entering the park from the roundabout end. (Myatt’s Fields, short questionnaire)

The horticultural areas are neglected and badly maintained - no weeding, no fertilising, no essential pruning and nobody with the right level of horticultural expertise. (Myatt’s Fields, short questionnaire)

Better grass cutting at path edges. Older park was meant to be restored to its Victorian glory but planting is very different. (Myatt’s Fields, short questionnaire)

Ours has been much improved so we’re happy. Overall I think play areas and horticulture are key. (Myatt’s Fields, short questionnaire)

Have the grass cut more often and the flower beds tended. More enforcement on dog owners the grass is covered in dog excrement. (Myatt’s Fields, long questionnaire) The greenhouse is underutilised in Myatt’s Field. (Myatt’s Fields, short questionnaire)

Buildings and café

Restoring the period character of the space and improve the depot buildings- bring in a cook school with Levi Roots build a shelter for the cafe have a licence to have weddings in the park planning to allow us to open the mulberry on Sundays. (Myatt’s Fields, long questionnaire)

Cafe shelter - I understand this is in development. Stop ice cream vans from parking at entrances and exits (a nightmare to get past with two small children....). Also the cafe sells much nicer with ice cream and I'm happy to support them. (Myatt’s Fields, long questionnaire)

I would be great to get the cafe in Myatt’s Fields operating a bit better - it's closed for winter. (Myatt’s Fields, long questionnaire)

The fact that the cafe is only open at weekends is not great. (Myatt’s Fields, short questionnaire)

Sports facilities and projects

Longer opening hours for tennis courts etc. maybe some lights, otherwise Myatt’s is nice. Brockwell Park needs separation nets so that residents are not bothered by stray balls from beginners. (Myatt’s Fields Park, short questionnaire)

The sports ground and the children's play area is so busy all of the time - it would be good to translate that to the cafe too. (Myatt’s Fields, long questionnaire)

I think that generally, community projects should be more widely advertised in the parks. (Myatt’s Fields, long questionnaire)

Better sports facilities. (Myatt’s Fields, long questionnaire)

Children’s facilities

The grass seems to have become coarse and lumpy and is cut in a rough fashion so that it is no longer a smooth cared-for green area in which to picnic and where small children can play in clean surroundings (no dogs) and babies, put down on rugs etc. (Myatt’s Fields, short questionnaire)

Children's facilities are available at Myatt’s Filed Park, Kennington Park and Vauxhall Park, but these are too far away for the many children around Mostyn Gardens or Myatt’s filed North or Oval Quarter building site to access easily. (Mostyn Park, short questionnaire)

One o'clock open all year round. (Myatt’s Fields, short questionnaire)

Cleaning and rubbish collection

More frequent rubbish collections and increase of gardeners to keep the parks tidy and well kept. (Myatt’s Fields, long questionnaire)

I would like it to be cleaned more often. Playground is often too dirty for my child to play. (Myatt’s Fields, long questionnaire)

Maintenance

Refurbishment of gates and fences, repairing of benches. (Myatt’s Fields, long questionnaire)

Lighting

Currently no lighting at all (though flood lights for football pitch have been agreed). (Myatt’s Fields, long questionnaire)

NORWOOD PARK

• A range of issues were raised about the park, including impro ved toilet facilities and better security . • Other issues included better facilities for sports and play . One person suggested a pitch for sports . • Other suggestions included better facilities for dog mess , an improved café and more growing space .

Toilets

Improve toilets. They are often dirty, lack soap and hot water. (Norwood Park, long questionnaire)

The toilets are closing earlier now is it because of vandalism? On Sunday it was closed at 5.30pm and there were kids, small kids around 5-6 years old still playing in the park. You know what it’s like; they drink a lot of fluid and they need the toilet. I can see why they would close it earlier because of vandalism. I’m surprised they spent all that money on the play area because I thought the older kids would wreck it. They’re always wrecking it for everybody else but the play area is still standing. (Interview with Norwood Park user)

Toilet facilities. They are often dirty and do not appear to have been cleaned for some time. Also, they often lack soap and hot water. (Norwood Park, short questionnaire)

Wider access for pushchairs and wheelchairs, accessibility to toilet facilities throughout the park and signage to direct you to the toilets. (Norwood Park, short questionnaire)

Security

More lighting along paths. (Norwood Park, short questionnaire)

The park is not protected from vandalism. (Norwood Park, short questionnaire)

Bring back the wardens in local parks and hire more volunteers, litter, SNT, guarded areas. (Norwood Park, short questionnaire)

Facilities for sport/ play

We think the existing MUGA pitch should be upgraded to cover sports other than just football, for example net ball and tennis. We are also told by the local school that uses it that the surface is not suitable and needs upgrading. The houses bordering the pitch complain about balls landing in their gardens. The fence is too low. Furthermore when

balls hit the fence they make a disturbing rattle. What can be done about that? (Norwood Park, short questionnaire)

Doing something with the disused paddling pool area - either refurbishing it or removing it or turning it into something else. (Norwood Park, short questionnaire)

Café

Catering - the cafe is ok but could offer a healthier range. (Norwood Park, long questionnaire)

Dogs

Dog poo bins to be emptied regularly as they’re often left over spilling! (Norwood Park, short questionnaire)

I would like to see the park divided because the dogs are dangerous. I think it’s dangerous for adults and children. There were a couple of occasions where I was nearly attacked. My children use the park five times a week to walk through it on the way to school and they were also nearly attacked. (Interview with Norwood Park user)

Allotments

More community growing spaces- perhaps with covered growing space/secure growing space. (Norwood Park, long questionnaire)

RUSKIN PARK • We received a lot of comments around Ruskin Park. The three main issues commented were: - children’s facilities (especially having a One O clock Club) - Café is very popular but has limited opening hours. - Improved planting/ trees/ flowers . • Residents were also concerned with the general upkeep and maintenance of the park – paths were a particular issue as was the old stable block, which people thought needed to be refurbished. • Other issues mentioned included better sports facilities, rubbish clearance and improved toilets.

Children

There is no one o’clock club anymore

I think there should be a 1'o'clock club back here. (Ruskin Park, short questionnaire)

There is currently no One O'clock Club in an area with lots of children. (Ruskin Park, short questionnaire)

Ruskin Park - Re-instate the 1'O'Clock club, now used by Trees for Cities (Ruskin Park, long questionnaire).

The one o'clock club is sorely missed. (Ruskin Park, short questionnaire)

One O'clock Club reopen. (Ruskin Park, long questionnaire)

1 o'clock club. (Ruskin Park, short questionnaire)

One o'clock club for the children and a cafe to be open because it's often closed. (Face to face interview)

1 0'clock club needs to be brought back. No dogs please. (Face to face interview)

Bring back One o'clock club. Children's play area for older children because they have been left out in the management and plan. (Face to face interview)

Children - Improved play facilities

The children's play area seems a bit old and rusty. (Face to face interview)

It has a great playground on one side but not the Herne Hill side. Create another such playground close to the Herne Hill entrance - an area deficient in playgrounds. (Ruskin Park, long questionnaire)

Upgrade to the play area if possible - more space for the cafe - they are fantastic but it feels a bit like they are 'making do' with a small hut when there is so much demand. (Ruskin Park, long questionnaire)

Also the children’s play area, landscape works and building improvements and more green or environmentally friendly projects. (Ruskin Park, short questionnaire)

Children's play area badly needs improving to the standards now seen in Brockwell Park. (Ruskin Park, long questionnaire)

Better layout around the play area to provide more family space. (Ruskin Park, long questionnaire)

Play area needs a refurbished. (Ruskin Park, short questionnaire)

More activities for older children:

Activities or facilities for teenagers who can monopolise the paddling pool or play area meant for children. (Ruskin Park, short questionnaire)

Café

The cafe' is too expensive so I barely buy here. (Face to face interview)

Work with the Friends of Ruskin Park to push the conversion of the Old Stable Block through to be a larger community cafe and education centre (advice and assistance with fundraising, help with planning etc.). This project would make a massive difference to the way in which young and old can enjoy the park. Also varnish the floor of the bandstand, otherwise the money spent on refurbishing that some years back risks being wasted. (Ruskin Park, long questionnaire)

Café staff mean well but it needs proper investment in the fab - expand it allowing many more covers. This expansion would probably make it economic to open some summer evenings. (Ruskin Park, long questionnaire).

Would be great to covert stables to a big cafe. The current cafe is only useful if you use the playground. The tennis courts are in poor repair and needs resurfacing. (Ruskin Park, short questionnaire)

Investigate income possibilities, e.g. a larger cafe on the East side of the park, and possibilities as a wedding venue (Ruskin Park, long questionnaire).

A better cafe would draw in more local residents. Importance of good value and friendliness. (Ruskin Park, short questionnaire)

It would be great to refurbish the stable block for an indoor cafe. It could be similar to Brockwell Hall. (Ruskin Park, long questionnaire)

A café for shelter during bad weather, toilets and indoor space at café. (Ruskin Park, long questionnaire)

Currently Ruskin Park is great; particularly the kids play area and café. (Ruskin Park, short questionnaire)

Proper cafe in the middle of the park. (Ruskin Park, long questionnaire)

Toilets and shelter at the café. (Ruskin Park, long questionnaire)

Landscape, wildlife and access

Planting/ trees/ flowers:

Ruskin needs a tree replacement strategy as much of the original planting is nearing the end of its life. This is evidenced by branches falling off, tree trunks splitting, old diseased trees being completely felled. The so called arboretum need maintaining and in some cases replacing. (Ruskin Park, long questionnaire)

More long grass/wild flower areas (hence less standardised lawn mowing); a more moderate and modified regime of tree pruning and removal, a bit more control of bramble, nettle and sycamore growth. Nothing more radical, the park is basically lovely! (Ruskin Park, long questionnaire)

Parks are important areas for wildlife and for a lot of people it is their only access to nature so this should be a priority. Apart from that it is an important teaching and modelling tool for sustainable behaviour and aesthetics. (Ruskin Park, short questionnaire)

We also need a nice cafe, but it's more 'care of the planted areas' that's urgent, the old bowling green, the pergola, etc. A different problem, which is very important, is the dogs and dog mess. It’s everywhere. (Ruskin Park, short questionnaire)

Grass cutting. More tree walks with guide. New/more benches. The road pavement on the Ferndale side of the park is unbelievable! Like the surface of a burnt cake - when is like to be renewed? (Ruskin Park, long questionnaire)

Flower gardens needs some attention, some are quite overgrown. (Ruskin Park, short questionnaire)

Areas planted. Flowers are too frequently unattractive. (Ruskin Park, short questionnaire)

Some educational info for schools in the wildlife area. (Ruskin Park, long questionnaire)

Cleaning some of the undergrowth around the pond. (Ruskin Park, long questionnaire)

More planting. Clear pond up a bit more. (Ruskin Park, long questionnaire)

Stable block, tree planting. (Ruskin Park, long questionnaire)

More planting. (Ruskin Park, long questionnaire)

Paths and walkways

Later opening hours and an improved pedestrian route from Denmark Hill to Loughborough Junction through the park. When the park is opening and its light this is our main route to Brixton but in the winter the route then changes at about 5.30pm. It

would be great if the park was open later with improved lighting to form a proper walking/cycling route. (Ruskin Park, long questionnaire)

Review positions of gates. As a runner I spend a lot of time opening (and closing, though often this is unnecessary despite signs) gates on my run around the park. I would like a clear running route round the whole perimeter of the park! (Ruskin Park, long questionnaire)

I would like better maintained pathways as I use a wheelchair. I do not like all the cars that come into the park. (Ruskin Park, short questionnaire)

Ensure ALL walkways as pram friendly, i.e. no cracks, etc. (Ruskin Park, long questionnaire)

Better path maintenance. (Ruskin Park, long questionnaire)

Buildings and general maintenance

Ruskin Park's two heritage buildings, the Portico and the Stable Block, are both in very poor condition. This is bad in itself and also creates a general impression of poor care. Stabilising them should be a priority. (Ruskin Park, long questionnaire)

Stop the decay of the stable block - there have been enough consultations and proposals - do something constructive. (Ruskin Park, long questionnaire)

Paddling pool and area are shabby and sports facilities need to be improved. The community garden could follow Brockwell Park with greenhouses and organised activities. (Ruskin Park, long questionnaire)

A master plan to make the park fit for the future and £6million investment will probably sort out the park. (Ruskin Park, long questionnaire)

Completely oversized for the works that go on. Arrange helicopter pad in hospital hounds rather than park grounds. (Ruskin Park, long questionnaire)

Finish the picnic area. Sandpit for children. Finish portico. (Ruskin Park, long questionnaire)

Remove huge central maintenance area. (Ruskin Park, long questionnaire)

Improved maintenance

The upkeep of Ruskin Park is far better than the upkeep of Milkwood, why? Equipment should be maintained, lawns cut, everything. (Ruskin Park/ Milkwood, short questionnaire)

Everything needs to be improved. Lambeth have not put enough money or maintenance into looking after the park. (Ruskin Park, short questionnaire) Please could the paddling pool be kept cleaner? All other areas are great. (Ruskin Park, short questionnaire)

Ruskin is perfect. It just needs maintaining as it is. (Ruskin Park, short questionnaire)

Sports facilities

Resurface football court and tennis courts. Refurbish paddling pool. Finally do something about the overgrown Bowling Green - it's not good enough that it was started and left to fester. (Ruskin Park, long questionnaire)

Bowling area is a disaster. Either return to bowling which old be fab or properly integrate back into park. (Ruskin Park, long questionnaire)

Ruskin Park perhaps some simple fitness tools, e.g. Monkey bars, sit-up poles etc. around the back field. (Ruskin Park, long questionnaire)

Currently there are only 3 tennis courts, also the 1 o'clock club has shut down. (Ruskin Park, short questionnaire)

Improvement of some unused spaces such as the old bowling green. (Ruskin Park, long questionnaire)

Both tennis and Rec pitch need updating. No changing rooms. (Ruskin Park, short questionnaire)

Dog free zone

Dogs do not belong in cities. Every square meter of open space is desperately needed by people. At present every square metre is available to dogs and they defecate everywhere. Whatever you do, dogs will poo everywhere. Every London Park is a concentrated dog toilet. (Ruskin Park, long questionnaire)

The demarcation between the dog free zone and dogs allowed areas should be made more obvious. Lambeth’s Parks Bye Laws should be posted somewhere in the park. (Ruskin Park, long questionnaire)

Dogs - people bring dogs in the play area and they ignore the sign “No dogs allowed.” (Face to face interview)

Improved toilets

Toilet facilities are inadequately maintained as are the drinking fountains. (Ruskin Park, short questionnaire)

The toilet facilities near the playground are very below standard. (Ruskin Park, short questionnaire)

Rubbish

Bins should be emptied in the evening to stop foxes pulling rubbish everywhere. Table tennis is needed for teenagers and adults and also changing rooms at top of Ruskin Park. (Ruskin Park, short questionnaire)

Bins should be emptied in the evening to stop foxes pulling rubbish everywhere. (Ruskin Park, short questionnaire)

Litter and rubbish. (Ruskin Park, short questionnaire)

Safety

A park ranger who we can report safety and animal issues to. (Ruskin Park, short questionnaire)

Lamp posts, streetlights and patrols. (Ruskin Park, short questionnaire)

Other comments:

Dedicated barbecue facilities could be built to stop the damage currently being done to surfaces by fires being lit on them. It would also help with the litter problem arising from large numbers of picnickers who cannot use a bin (Ruskin Park, long questionnaire).

If there are well publicised welcoming spaces for people to come then the park would see more use. It’s important to have a good hub for the people. (Ruskin Park, short questionnaire)

Growing food and using it in the community. Want to have an option to create local jobs, local food and stall the supermarket takeover. (Unidentified, short questionnaire)

Ruskin Park is very good. (Ruskin Park, short questionnaire)

STREATHAM COMMON/ STREATHAM GREEN

• Improved children’s play facilitates for all age groups were by far the most common improvement that residents wanted to see at Streatham Common (a total of around 60 comments were received on this subject through the long and

short questionnaires). There were far more comments received on children’s play equipment at Streatham Common than all other parks. • Many residents said that there were not enough facilities for older children and young people and so they suggested having more play and sports equipment and nature activities available to older children and young people. • Some residents said that the play equipment needed to be more accessible to children with disabilities . • Safety and levels of danger in Streatham Common was a major concern for many park users, particularly around strangers in secluded areas. Residents felt that security needed to be drastically improved especially following reported attacks on women in Streatham Common. • A new and improved café was also a very popular suggestion. Residents wanted the café to be more modern and to the café food to be more interesting and imaginative. • Residents also wanted more outdoor fitness facilities and changing rooms . People said that the toilets facilities needed more maintenance and upgrading. • Some residents suggested that there could be more wildlife features and wildlife activities available to local users. • Some residents wanted there to be more events at Streatham Common, especially during the summer. • Residents felt that the dog free zones and dog safety measures should be more enforced.

Children’s facilities and the paddling pool

An improved narrative between play equipment, for example the castle type structure encourages the kids’ imagination, the rocket too. Swings are swings, you got to have swings (the best swings are in the Princess Diana Memorial Park Hyde Park (PDMP)) PDMP has a narrative, where one area leads to the next, to the next etc. So many opportunities to get inspiration from in London, just look around, Crystal Palace is fantastic, transplant that blueprint. Something else I notice when a tree falls it becomes a centre for mischief, the older kids 12 - 16 like to carve and snap the tree, like modern day urban beetles returning the tree back to the soil, I'd encourage this. (Streatham Common, long questionnaire)

The local play area in Streatham Common is very outdated compared to most in the south London area. There is a huge amount of fenced off space but very little play equipment in this area (most of it being taken up by an empty paddling pool never filled anymore). The play equipment also does not reflect the age range of those that want to use it with little to do or younger pre-school children. A good example of what should be achieved is Brockwell Park’s playground with their sand and wood based play area and splash zone wet play area. Both of which could be achieved in the Streatham Common site. This is a playground that has a very heavy use due to the large number of families

living in Streatham but the facilities are not currently up to standard. (Streatham Common, short questionnaire)

The current one is adequate but the kids play by the side of a very busy road. The fumes can't be good. If you created a new one at the top of the common it is a beautiful area and they can play without seeing a car. Also it could be incorporated with the trees so a real outdoor experience. These children grow up in London but let’s try and give them a bit of the countryside. Duck pond? Look at Wandsworth Common - the kid's playground can't see the road and there are hide holes with the trees. Football pitches / cricket pitches. Lots of local clubs run sessions for kids - rugby tots etc. (Streatham Common, long questionnaire)

Refurbishment of children's playground, specifically fix the gates so that they close - THIS IS AN URGENT SAFETY NEED! Replace or refurbish the climbing equipment so that the children don't get splinters or cuts from the corroded metal. Replace the protective rubber flooring. Upgrade the play area - consider a sand pit, consider a screen of trees or plants to provide a green barrier from the road. Also refurbish the paddling pool at the top of the Common. Having some water in the paddling pool would be a start. (Streatham Common, long questionnaire)

The children’s play area is poor both in Streatham Common and Valley Road. Although money was allocated to Valley Road as part of a Section 106 agreement, building has begun on the development but there has been no work on the playground. Streatham Common should have a playground to the standard of Brockwell Park’s. (Streatham Common, short questionnaire)

The paddling pool at the top of Streatham Common needs to be re-opened in the spring and summer months. In recent years it has not been open regularly, has not been filled properly and therefore is falling out of use. A few years ago this was a fantastic play area for children and everyone loved having it - and hundreds of parents are sad to have lost this facility as it no longer seems to be managed or opened. (Streatham Common, long questionnaire)

The children's play areas needs on going developments and maintenance. I would like to see the forest school activities being introduced working with local schools. This can create spaces for schools, families and community groups to encourage children to develop natural play skills. (Streatham Common, Long questionnaire)

My grandchildren slipped on algae, and we had to stop them playing there as it was dangerous. What a shame, with the glorious summer we have had! It should have been full of children playing every day. (Streatham Common, long questionnaire)

The playground needs a full overhaul and spaces for all age groups. The paddling pool area needs a full overhaul to make it more imaginative, larger, and more accessible and more user friendly and more hygienic. (Streatham Common, long questionnaire)

More natural and wood play facilities as well as wet play areas similar to the children’s play facilities (dry and wet) in Brockwell Park and other London parks. (Streatham Common, long questionnaire)

Accessible children’s play facilities

Wheelchair friendly cafe, toilets and children’s playground it would be nice to have more play equipment suitable for children with physical disabilities as at the moment there is one swing. Dulwich Park has a different kind of usage and a roundabout. (Streatham Common, short questionnaire)

We need a fully accessible play area for children of all abilities. At the moment there is little which caters for the needs of disabled children. (Streatham Common, short questionnaire)

Youth provisions

The play equipment also does not reflect the age range of those that want to use it with little to do or younger pre-school children. A good example of what should be achieved is Brockwell Park’s playground with their sand and wood based play area and splash zone wet play area. Both of which could be achieved in the Streatham Common site. (Streatham Common, short questionnaire)

By this I mean EVERY park should have a skate park for local young people to play and take healthy exercise. They are shamefully ignored in the current system, and it is not surprising that there are so many issues with young people hanging around when they have nowhere to go. (Streatham Common, short questionnaire)

More facilities for youngsters of all ages, it’s needed to help them come together in non- destructive activities, to learn to improve their health and social wellbeing and participate with adults too. (Streatham Common, short questionnaire)

For a town the size of Streatham the play area is very poorly equipped. I've seen better in small rural villages. There needs to be more for older children too. (Streatham Common, short questionnaire)

Youth provision - playgrounds for small children up to the standard of Brockwell Park for example; something for teenagers such as a wood walk. (Streatham Common, long questionnaire)

Create an area for older children to use e.g. Brockwell Park has a BMX area which appeals to older children. (Streatham Common, long questionnaire)

All weather multipurpose area for teenagers (basketball hoops, football etc.). (Streatham Common, long questionnaire)

I will put in sports facilities for the youths with changing rooms. (Streatham Common, long questionnaire)

Patrolling and safety

The main problem is the recycling centre: rubbish from it blows into the park on a daily basis and looks really depressing. Someone needs to put up better screening to stop this happening; monitor the recycling centre so that people don't fly tip here; pick up the rubbish. On occasion I have seen the grass being mowed and all the rubbish being shredded. People overfill the waste bins on a regular basis and some disgusting people just leave their rubbish where they eat. If there were park keepers patrolling they could caution/fine people.... (Streatham Common, long questionnaire).

More wardens and volunteers for children and families. The Rookery is lovely. This Common is a gem, beautiful, nice area but there are hidden dangers. … Bring back the warden please. Thank you. (Streatham Common, short questionnaire)

I also have big concerns about safety on Streatham Common. At present I would not risk walking there alone in daylight or take my child there and until I am sure it is being well staffed and policed to deter would-be attackers, I will be staying away. (Streatham Common/(Brockwell Park, short questionnaire)

The Rookery is one of the best in London if not England, but the local wooded area is very dangerous as there are no wardens to monitor and it's a shame what goes on there regularly. In the woods you could lose your life after a visit to the local common area. (Streatham Common, short questionnaire)

There doesn't seem to be any park keepers or rangers to keep an eye on things. A woman was sexually assaulted in broad daylight in The Rookery this week and had nowhere to go for help. Some years ago as a teenager there were also problems with men exposing themselves. There needs to be wardens of some kind. (Streatham Common, short questionnaire)

Safety patrols - everything else is well managed through joint working with the Friends of Brockwell Park. Increased amount of drinking in the park and local reports of attacks on women (Streatham Common) highlight the need for security. (Brockwell Park, short questionnaire)

The defined use of space - to have the rookery lawns and gardens as a quiet space without ball games, kite flying, barbeques, scooters and dogs off leads. The Common is big enough for all the listed activities above. Perhaps improved signage and staff to

encourage good use of the space or enforce this where necessary. (Streatham Common/ The Rookery, short questionnaire)

A more balanced approach to the policing of the cycle path, close Windmill Drive to through traffic and install a traffic-calming scheme (full-width road cushions, not isolated pads). Treat the cycle path with salt during the winter. (Streatham Common, long questionnaire)

It would also be good if it could be made safer - more lighting, CCTV, park wardens, these things would at least help to deter the weirdos that frequent the Common, especially at the top where it's less busy. (Streatham Common, long questionnaire)

Reduce the amplified music on the bottom of the common that seems to be becoming a feature of Sunday mornings, and makes it impossible to escape the base beats anywhere in the Common. (Streatham Common, long questionnaire)

Boards to be placed in The Rookery saying, "Keep off the grass areas". These used to be lovely looking but as of late, people and particularly children, are playing on the grassed areas. (Streatham Common, short questionnaire)

Safety - additional lights, CCTV, parks police patrols etc... Streatham Common has some very secluded areas which do not feel safe for lone women either at night or during the day. (Streatham Common, short questionnaire)

Fitness facilities and outdoor classes

I wanted to come along to voice our suggestion for an outdoor gym at Streatham Common. Most other parks like Mitcham, Norwood, Pollards Hill all have an outdoor gym and Streatham Common does not have one. Why? A gym would be of benefit for all concerned especially to those who cannot afford gym memberships and there a quite a few in Streatham (Email from local resident – Streatham Common) An addition of an outdoor gym would be a great attraction. It would be good for the health side of things. Also it would be accessible for those who cannot afford the hefty prices of indoor gyms (yes even the new hub will be excluding for many by its prices). Also it will stop young men from using the children’s climbing frames as makeshift gyms - there clearly is a need! (Streatham Common, long questionnaire)

There's only one sad tennis court, take a look at the new and amazing "The level" park development in Brighton. Its design was a very co-operative venture and there's something for lots of age groups ... a stunning playground, a water area and a great skateboard park, plus cafe and meeting rooms. (Streatham Common, long questionnaire)

Volleyball net - volleyball is a cheap and inclusive sport where all you need is one person to turn up with a ball and anyone interested can join in. I would love to see a

net/court supplied so that members of the community could play this fun and healthy game spontaneously. (Streatham Common, long questionnaire)

Having an exercise 'trim trail' around Streatham Common would make the common a very valuable health resource for residents. As in Brockwell Park, these are very discreet and valuable additions to park spaces. (Streatham Common, short questionnaire)

I would like to see an outdoor keep fit circuit ... a bit like the one at Figs Marsh (which I often see people using); they are also quite common on the in France. (Streatham Common, long questionnaire)

We need exercise equipment, there are also quite a few rats in the grassy area and this is something that needs to be addressed. (Streatham Common, long questionnaire)

Tennis court overhaul - the current court is adequate but could do with some TLC. (Streatham Common, long questionnaire)

More outdoor classes - military style fitness, Buggyfit, tai chi and children's outdoor activities. (Streatham Common, long questionnaire)

A football pitch and changing rooms for sports teams. (Streatham Common, long questionnaire)

Café, stalls and eateries

The cafe needs a face-lift and the food/service needs to be brought into the 21st Century. I understand that the lease is up for renewal and that in the past this has been a closed process. This needs to change with the renewal process being put to a public vote. (Streatham Common, long questionnaire)

I think the cafe by the car park could be improved enormously - the food is uninteresting and unimaginative, it provides no comfortable areas, is bland and the furniture (especially outdoor) is terrible! I really hope the co-op will make it into a community resource. (Streatham Common, long questionnaire)

A decent cafe at the bottom of the common by the playground so parents don't have to bring their own flasks and snacks to avoid the long walk up to The Rookery (not all people are physically capable of getting there). (Streatham Common, short questionnaire)

Farmers market needs a re-think; should be more affordable and include stalls selling e.g. crafts, second-hand clothes, and some inexpensive items to appeal to all sections of community. (Streatham Common, long questionnaire)

Cafe, one o’clock club (The Lodge) and other small building on south side all need some care and attention - small investment, big potential for community uses. (Streatham Common, s hort questionnaire)

Improve the Rookery Cafe. It currently is a bit of a greasy spoon but has the potential to be a lovely cafe. (Streatham Common, short questionnaire)

Access, landscape and wildlife

3 points:- 1) Access through Streatham Green onto Streatham High Rd/A23 is an important route to Streatham station, shops, supermarkets and Streatham Common, from Mitcham Lane. Unfortunately, the steps at the bottom are inaccessible for wheelchairs, buggies, heavy shopping trolleys and people with limited mobility. The alternative route from Mitcham Lane, along the pavement means a sharp right-hand corner turn on a steep slope, facing into oncoming traffic. It is dangerous and frightening for users. An assessment is in the pipeline, I understand, to replace them with an extended ramp on a gentler gradient. 2) There should also be some railings on the kerbside at the access points onto A23, as; again they open straight onto the pavement on a steep slope. (Streatham Common, short questionnaire)

More interesting variety of trees it be feasible to have climbing plants (honeysuckle, climbing roses etc.) against some of the walls surrounding the Green. Bring back a permanent stall beside the Green selling flowers, drinks, snacks or vegetables. Because it's such a tricky space to manage, I think it needs someone with expertise and "clout" to co-ordinate efforts - can't be left just to volunteers and Friends group who, with the best will in the world, are not able to bring about sustained improvements. (Streatham Common, long questionnaire).

Improve biodiversity with planting flower meadows, more wildlife planting - perhaps zoning some more areas dog-free and providing insect hotels, bat boxes, bird boxes etc. (Streatham Common, long questionnaire).

Greenery to create a barrier between the kids playground and the A23, an arterial road into or out of London. The noise and pollution is a nightmare. (Streatham Common, short questionnaire)

Maintain top-quality flower beds like in The Rookery, a fabulous asset for Lambeth. (Streatham Common, short questionnaire)

Involving the community in any makeover would be fantastic and invaluable, such as planting willow arches etc. (Streatham Common, long questionnaire)

A park is a park; it needs more trees, ponds, Japanese garden. (Streatham Common, short questionnaire)

A community orchard (Streatham Common, long questionnaire)

Litter collection and drainage

There are a large percentage of families in Streatham and the parks should cater for that. I for one would like to see the rubbish cleared up early on weekends - I have been to Streatham Common on a Sunday at lunchtime and there have been beer cans, empty wine bottles and worse strewn everywhere. How can we enjoy the common with our small children when it's filthy? (Streatham Common, long questionnaire).

Litter patrols, after sunny day it's shocking to see how much litter is left lying around. I know people need to take responsibility for their own littering actions but I think that with litter patrols, and fines for littering people could be educated and reform their behaviour. (Streatham Common, long questionnaire)

Draining is poor. The sloping site means that water collects heavily in the playground; combined with a lot of potholes it is quite unsafe. (Streatham Common, long questionnaire)

The path running alongside the High Road is flooded for most of the winter months, sometimes making it impassable. (Streatham Common, short questionnaire)

Toilets and changing facilities

A changing block down at the foot of the common provided it is built on the site of the existing buildings, a park run could be held there every Saturday which would bring a lot more users. (Streatham Common, long questionnaire)

Changing rooms - would be great for people coming to the common to play sport, whether tennis or cricket (should a pitch be provided) or for the many runners who use the park. (Streatham Common, long questionnaire)

Sport fields with club/changing rooms (these could be annexed to the existing poorly maintained toilets near the playground) - improvements to the public toilets. (Streatham Common, long questionnaire)

The cafe and toilets serving the site are in dire need of investment and would be well used if maintained to a good standard. (Streatham Common, short questionnaire)

New public toilets near the existing playground that is maintained properly. (Streatham Common, long questionnaire)

Initially general updating and refurbishing toilets and changing rooms etc. (Streatham Common, long questionnaire)

Improve the upgrading and availability of the toilet facilities. (Streatham Common, short questionnaire)

Wheelchair access to the café or toilets. (Streatham Common/ The Rookery, short questionnaire)

Toilets: please do something about this because these people can find hotels to do their stuff not in the kids play area. Improve the children's area. (Face to face interview, Streatham Common)

The bathrooms are very dirty and I don't know who clean them. Also cleaning the park. There are cigarette's ends everywhere. It needs maintenance. (Face to face interview, Streatham Common)

Events and Festivals

I think Streatham Common is a good space for big events so I'm pleased that the kite festival already takes place. (Streatham Common, long questionnaire)

There should be more events, especially during the summer like at Clapham Common, and more group fitness and sports activities. (Streatham Common, long questionnaire).

More organised events such as kite day, centenary celebrations, Streatham festival etc. (Streatham Common, long questionnaire)

To have regular community events similar to the West Norwood Feast. (Streatham Common, long questionnaire)

Fewer fairs or at least for the money from the fairs to go on specific improvement projects. (Streatham Common, long questionnaire)

Invest in the upkeep and stop the fun fairs. (Streatham Common, long questionnaire)

More festivals, cultural events. (Streatham Common, short questionnaire)

More local events. (Streatham Common, long questionnaire)

Dogs

Kids safety because dogs were not allowed in The Rookery before and since I have come back from our holiday, I have been once to The Rookery and I’ve realised that dogs are allowed in the upper bit. On that occasion, I noticed that a dog owner had ignored this and walked his dog in the lower area, where I also noticed some dog mess. It was nice to have an area free from dog and dog's mess. So I am not happy with that change. (Streatham Common /The Rookery, short questionnaire)

Certain dense bushy areas need some attention to make the common safer for children and dog walkers.In general Streatham Common needs and deserves some overdue attention and a full face-lift. (Streatham Common, long questionnaire).

Proper patrols of dog wardens and sufficient dog and litter bins that actually get emptied with frequent regularity. (Streatham Common, short questionnaire)

THE ROOKERY

• Residents felt that The Rookery could be better maintained especially the landscape and wildlife in the park. • A resident suggested that there should clearer signage for designated areas , for example for quiet areas.

Landscape and wildlife

The Rookery used to be lovely and the local community has worked really hard with the local authority lately for the centenary but not sure if this is sustainable. Also, there is inconsistency, the local authority claims it can't afford to look after the trees etc. in the park but has mysteriously found the money to pay tree pollarders to butcher SOME of the trees in our road. The local community is outraged that these essential oxygen sources have been ruined. (Streatham Common/The Rookery, short questionnaire)

Better management of the Rookery - many areas of planting get trampled by kids - it would be good for better understanding to be promoted of the areas that can be walked on and those that can't so that wildlife and planting can be sustained (The Rookery, Long questionnaire).

The Rookery is starting to look shabby it is clearly not being as well maintained as two years ago and funding for the gardener should be reinstated (The Rookery, Long questionnaire).

Replanting and maintenance of beautiful gardens in Rookery (The Rookery, Long questionnaire)

Better maintenance of the formal gardens of the Rookery (The Rookery, Long questionnaire)

Beautiful planting/ landscaping in the rookery (The Rookery, Long questionnaire)

Better planting and lighting (The Rookery, Long questionnaire)

Designated areas

Clearer signage that the walled garden and Rookery are quiet areas, not for screaming kids. Kids can be quiet and reflective - if the parents are inclined - I've seen plenty of Polish children quietly enjoying the gardens (The Rookery, Long questionnaire).

Events

More use of the Rookery for local events (The Rookery, Long questionnaire)

Litter collection

More regular emptying of bins (The Rookery, Long questionnaire)

STREATHAM VALE PARK • Residents wanted there to be general improvements to Streatham Vale Park, including the refurbishment of the bowls clubhouse . • Residents wanted Streatham Vale Park to be safer .

Bowls Clubhouse and Café

In the park there is a bowls club house which has been left closed but could be used as either or a cafe or one o'clock club - this could significantly enhance the park and its use. (Streatham Vale Park, short questionnaire)

Refurbishment of old bowls clubhouse in order to deliver better facilities, e.g. a cafe, a new 1'o'clock club & possible other community benefits (Streatham Vale Park, Long questionnaire).

We have a dilapidated pavilion in Streatham Vale Park that needs to be brought back into use. (Streatham Vale, short questionnaire)

Need toilets & drinking water. (Streatham Vale Park, Long questionnaire)

Coffee shop. (Streatham Vale Park, Long questionnaire)

Patrolling and safety

Better physical security to prevent abuse of the space by minority local users (this is a small problem which needs to be addressed sensitively before it becomes a larger problem). (Streatham Vale Park, Long questionnaire)

Keeping the park safer. (Streatham Vale Park, Long questionnaire)

Children’s play area

New equipment in children's play area. (Streatham Vale Park, Long questionnaire)

Re-open after school club. (Streatham Vale Park, Long questionnaire)

Toilet access

Access to toilet. (Streatham Vale Park, Long questionnaire)

VAUXHALL PARK

• Residents wanted the maintenance in Vauxhall Park to be improved. People thought that the grass could be cared for better, and that there could be more trees. • Other comments included better cleaning and rubbish clearance , including cleaning the water fountain . • People also mentioned better children’s and sports facilities , and having an area for dogs . In some areas there was anti-social behaviour and noise pollution from young people using the sports facilities.

Management of park features

Vauxhall Park has an excellent opportunity to become a horticultural attraction. Close to the RHS and Goude Museum at Lambeth. (Vauxhall Park, short questionnaire)

The park has few trees. In the summer people like to be in the shade and it encourages wildlife. (Vauxhall Park/ Vauxhall Pleasure Gardens, short questionnaire)

Vauxhall Park has huge potential to become a horticultural attraction...close to the RHS, Garden Museum, Chelsea Flower Show, etc. (Vauxhall Park, long questionnaire).

Vauxhall Park is not particularly well cared for; the grass is patchy in places and not particularly clean. (Vauxhall Park, short questionnaire)

More regular mowing and horticultural improvements. (Vauxhall Park, short questionnaire)

Maintenance and cleaning

Playground for children 0-5 fountain is not working! Water in the fountain is dirty! (Vauxhall Park, long questionnaire)

Cleaner water in a fountain. (Vauxhall Park, long questionnaire)

More to be clean. (Vauxhall Park, long questionnaire)

More bins. (Vauxhall Park, long questionnaire)

Walkway easily floods, there is a bit of litter and grass maintenance. (Vauxhall Park, short questionnaire)

Children’s attractions

More looked after and renovated playground. (Vauxhall Park, long questionnaire)

Make it more interesting for children. (Vauxhall Park, long questionnaire)

The play equipment needs updating and augmenting. (Vauxhall Park, short questionnaire)

The playground equipment is old and out of date. (Vauxhall Park, short questionnaire)

Improvement of play equipment and tennis courts. (Vauxhall Park, long questionnaire).

Dogs

I love this park, but I think dogs should be kept on leashes except in the designated dog area. (Vauxhall Park, short questionnaire)

ASB

Please remove football court/basketball court from its current position. This causes a terrible disturbance to residence with youths who throw stones at the windows. People enter the car park even when it is closed or during the night causing a disturbance to residence. The ball court encourages youths to gather where they throw stones at windows, hang around, smoke, and drink alcohol. Noise pollution, constant swearing and shouting is heard. Please can someone help with these issues? Thank you. (Vauxhall Park - Lawn Lane / Ebbisham drive entrance, short questionnaire)

VAUXHALL PLEASURE GARDENS

We would like to institute an annual Vauxhall Pleasure Garden Festival which would include a Handel concert, theatre performances and various other activities (dog shows, educational projects, art, etc.). In the long run we would like to build a semi-permanent structure to host such events throughout the year. (Vauxhall Pleasure Gardens, long questionnaire)

More wildlife and biodiversity areas well signed to add an educational element to the park. (Vauxhall Pleasure Gardens, long questionnaire)

No, I just want it maintained by the council. (Vauxhall Park/Pleasure Gardens, short questionnaire)

OTHER PARKS

• Most residents who commented on the small parks and gardens wanted the general maintenance and upkeep of the spaces to be improved.

ARCHBISHOP’S PARK

• Some residents wanted more sports facilities at Archbishop’s Park to be improved, some residents wanted the football pitches removed . • One resident said that they wanted a café at Archbishop’s Park.

Sports facilities

The removal of the 'desert' of football pitches - replace them with open play space and planting. If not possible at least restrict football tournaments to weekdays - they are extremely intrusive: loud music, they are a lot of people using grass for warm-ups and football, they’re ruining it for the very many who sit alone or with friends on the grass to escape noise and hub bub of the inner city. (Archbishop’s Park, short questionnaire)

Cricket nets are rare in London, but they are becoming a bit run down at Archbishop’s Park, would love to see them improved. The football pitch surface is awful; it’s too rough and dusty. (Archbishops Park, short questionnaire)

Football pitch should be done up. (Archbishops Park, short questionnaire)

Café

The addition of a café that served local users of the park would be of great benefit. (Archbishop’s Park, long questionnaire)

HILLSIDE GARDENS

• Residents wanted more wildlife and outdoor learning for children at Hillside Gardens. • One resident wanted to bring park keepers back to Hillside Gardens.

Landscape, wildlife and learning for children

More fruit trees, planters, wildlife area, outdoor environmental learning opportunities for children.(Hillside Gardens, long questionnaire)

Hillside Gardens - retaining wall needs to be re-built. (Hillside Gardens, long questionnaire)

Park keepers

Bring back park keepers/community wardens to green spaces. (Hillside Gardens, long questionnaire)

HOLMEWOOD GARDENS – Streatham Hill

• Residents wanted the general landscape of Holmewood Gardens to be improved, for example repainting railings, fences and benches and planting of trees and flower beds.

Landscape

Railings/fences and benches need reprinting; dead tree stumps need extracting; the playground could use a refresh; the lights through the central path should be painted black (it's a conservation area). (Holmewood Gardens, long questionnaire)

Planting of trees and flower beds is required both in the park and the dog walking area. (Holmewood Gardens, short questionnaires)

ST MARK’S CHURCHYARD

• Residents wanted to improve the pathways and the attraction to St. Mark’s Churchyard.

Access and pathways

Make them accessible and safe for all to use. Make and keep them attractive so that everyone will use them rather than people who want to do something naughty away from everyone else. (St Mark’s Churchyard, long questionnaire)

Improved pathway in St Marks Churchyard (I'm just arranging a quote as I did with repairing the churchyard railings) better planting. (St Mark’s Churchyard, long questionnaire)

100

ST PAUL’S CHURCHYARD Nothing because you do not need to disturb graves. (Face to face interviews)

St Paul's Churchyard is very nice as it is but it would be nice to see gym facility in all Lambeth parks. (Face to face interviews)

Nothing because it is nice as it is. (Face to face interviews)

Cut the grass regularly. (Face to face interviews)

The graves look very old and maybe a bit of painting. (Face to face interviews)

Nothing as I am not fully qualified about children's needs. (Face to face interviews)

Nothing because it is a peaceful place and many people do come here to have peace of mind. (Face to face interviews)

PEDLAR’S PARK

More seats because we have few. (Face to face interviews)

Benches because employees come here for lunch and stand up eating. (Face to face interviews)

Benches. (Face to face interviews)

This park needs some toys for the kids. (Face to face interviews)

Nothing because the park looks very well to me. (Face to face interviews)

Nothing. I like the park as it is and I mostly come here during night. (Face to face interviews)

Because there are no any at the moment and the flower bed that are in the park are not looked after properly. (Face to face interviews)

They should be a place where you can leave the dog to run freely. Children's play and needs improvement as the games are old. (Face to face interviews)

Let local residents know about the park. Organise beauty pageant for local children during summer time so that we can know each other properly. (Face to face interviews)

101

Sports facility such as table tennis as we do not have it in this park and young people would love it. (Face to face interviews)

BIRMINGTON

Café, sculpture gardens, model railways and carousels

Start with some proper cafes that do good coffee and nice food, then the sculpture gardens and finally the model railways and carousels etc. (Birmington, long questionnaire)

ELAM ST OPEN SPACE

Grass maintenance, a café and an outdoor gym Regular grass cutting there is no excuse there are hardly any bulbs there. Repairing the decking, trimming the pergola...Injecting some colour, a cafe and some outdoor gym equipment or a business that opens onto the area and is complementary or sympathetic to the park. (Elam St Open Space, long questionnaire)

LAMBETH WALK DOORSTEP GREEN

Permitted cycling Tooting Common - permit cycling from Drewstead Road to Rastell Avenue (both in Lambeth, though Common managed by Wandsworth). (Lambeth Walk Doorstep Green, long questionnaire)

ST MATTHEW’S CHUCH GARDEN

Investment and maintenance No vision, no long term planning, no design, no investment. Would benefit from a stronger identity, purpose, design, investment, love, attention, maintenance. (St. Matthew’s Church Garden, long questionnaire)

STOCKWELL AREA

Clean and safe play equipment children 1) We need more safe playing equipment 2) We need clean and green parks. (Stockwell Area, long questionnaire)

More playing equipment for children. (Stockwell Area, long questionnaire)

102

RUSH COMMON

Children’s facilities: Swings for children Slides for children Horticultural e.g. gardening project like growing vegetable as they do in Chessington and Chelsea Borough. Kids play area needs a tarmac and a safety. (Face to face interview)

There is no children's play area in Rush Common. In Brockwell and Streatham we have but they can improve it. (Face to face interview)

Play area for the kids because they have nothing to do and nowhere to go these days. (Face to face interview)

Children play area or flower bed because local resident would love to use them. (Face to face interview) Somewhere for the kids to play and also while parents wait for their kids they can use the opportunity to do gym. Face to face interview)

Grass and planting maintenance

'Rush Common' needs more attention to grass and planting. The boundary walls and paths also need attention. (Rush Common, long questionnaire)

Horticultural should be improved because I work on the park. (Face to face interview)

Having a market:

Use these spaces for market events like these. (Face to face interview)

The market, because everyone is happy. They come to shop and they respect each other. This is the best. Face to face interview)

It is nice to see market event like this going on. Swings for kids to use. (Face to face interview)

Other facilities:

Hammocks and water machines free of charge because during summer it gets very lot and I think having drinking water there will be nice. (Face to face interview)

More benches to allow people to rest after shopping. (Face to face interview)

103

SLADE GARDENS

Benches, footpaths, flowerbeds and toilets Park is multi-purpose but there is little recognition for those who want peace or to stroll. More benches, footpaths, flowerbeds, toilets reinstated, cafe if possible but maybe capacity does not warrant. Slade Gardens seems all about the One O'clock Club, footballers and dog walkers. (Slade Gardens, short questionnaire)

ST LUKE’S GARDENS

I like this gardens and the way is kept. I don't know if they get enough help from the church. (Face to face interview)

More shelters to hide during the rain. Small play area for the kids e.g. swings. (Face to face interview) This garden's attached to the church and the church will look after it. However I prefer someone to take care of it as all open spaces need to be looked after. (Face to face interview)

It looks good to me but there are things that need improvement such as pavement near the church need new concrete. (Face to face interview)

Cafe' will be nice because it will bring people together to get food. (Face to face interview)

Look after this church, Emmanuel Church as these are very important to this community. (Face to face interview)

Flower bed needs improvement because it doesn't look pretty. The concrete need to be resurfaced. (Face to face interview)

EMMA CONS GARDENS

There is no facility to sit down because benches will allow people to come and sit down while having their lunch as they do it standing. (Face to face interview)

Benches to sit. (Face to face interview)

I don't think benches will do because drunken people will now be coming and staying around. This garden is nice as it is. (Face to face interview)

Flowers and bins only because we need bins in this garden. (Face to face interview)

104

Keep up the local food event include dance and other events for the community. (Face to face interview)

Maintenance of the place because everyone pass by and it is in central. (Face to face interview)

Benches because when waiting for the theatre, it should be nice to sit and wait for the time but now I am waiting for the programme and there is nowhere to sit with my baby. (Face to face interview)

It's nice when they use it as market or to attract people rather than pavement. It's nice when it is used for events such as markets, entertainment and live music events. (Face to face interview)

Comments from people with disabilities:

Access With concern to small open spaces and parks – people explained that they usually preferred larger parks that could accommodate scooters on the foot paths. Also foot paths possibly weren’t as wide or as well maintained in smaller parks and open spaces. In smaller parks people felt that there were more likely be smaller children and playgrounds in the park, and that this could cause a problem if they were on their scooter.

“We cannot use the smaller parks because of the pathways. We’ve not really been to the small parks with our wheelchairs and scooters.”

“There can be a problem with the surface of pathways and my wheelchair. The paths have gravel on them and this makes it very difficult for me to use my wheelchair. It would be much easier for me to use if there was an asphalt or concrete surface or even paving which was reasonably flat. I also sometimes get stuck on pathways when they get muddy – so that can prevent me from using the park especially around the entrance to the park.” (Brockwell Park user)

“One other problem is they do close the gates for Brockwell Park – I don’t think that is the case for all other parks such as Clapham Common but they do close the park in Brockwell which can prevent me from using it.” (Service user with physical disability)

“Sometimes I will go to the other side of the park if the road/path isn’t very good. They need to have more flat paving for wheelchairs. It would also be nice to have more group activities or more organised activities in the park where you could join in – but they should make sure the dogs are kept on one side or kept under control.” (Service user with physical disability)

105

Safety

During the focus group with people who have a physical or sensory disability, people identified that safety could be a problem and this meant that often people did not want to go to the park on their own. For instance one lady said that because she had a hearing impairment, she did not feel that she would be able to communicate if someone approached her – even to explain that she was deaf.

“I feel that safety is an issue because I would have no way of communicating with people if they came up to me.”

Sensory walks and trails

An organisation representing people with learning disabilities suggested having a sensory trail.

… some of the ideas we have already discussed are sensory walks/trails in parks, and wheelchair accessible play equipment that is accessible and designed for adult use; we’d love to work with you to come up with some creative ideas that could really transform the parkas for this group of people. (Submission via email, MENCAP – Learning disability)

“I live right near Kennington Park but I cannot go on my own because of my visual impairment – I do not feel safe going on my own. Sometimes I go to Clapham and other times Brockwell. When we go I would probably go for around an hour and take a packed lunch with us. What makes the difference to me – because I cannot see – would be other things such as moving water, such as a fountain for example, or a river. Also I cannot see flowers or foliage but it is nice when flowers have a scent and I can smell them. I will think or ask .. what is that? What would stop me going to the park? I think if the sun is shining then I would go most of the time – it is the weather or the cold that would stop me from going.” (Resident with visual impairment)

106