Friends of Cotteridge Park Community Building 2017

Report of Open Consultation Event

25th October2017, Cadbury Club, Bournville Lane

Dr Alison Millward, Alison Millward Associates

1Introduction

This report has been prepared by Alison Millward (Alison Millward Associates) who facilitated the consultation event on behalf of the Friends of Cotteridge Park (FOCP) and Sport England.

The event was publicised widely in the local area and 37 people attended. A further three people sent in comments by email.

Post-it session at FOCP consultation on 25th October 2017

The aims of the open consultation eventwere to:

  • Present the latest proposals on the design of a new community building in Cotteridge Park
  • Present the results of the online communitysurvey
  • Facilitate further discussion of how the building could be used
  • Facilitate a discussion amongst supporters and objectors of the pros and cons of such an amenity
  • Invite further involvement of those present in the next stages of the planning process.

The outcomes of the discussions at the event will befedback to all the participants, the local community, the architect and Sport England. It is expected that the design of the building will then be revised and re-presented to the community prior to the submission of a planning application.

Several participants have expressed their willingness to be closely involved in the planning application, construction and operational stages. FOCP will contact these people by email in due course.

2Question and Answer

Following opening presentations on the latest design of the proposed building and the results of an online community survey that attracted 457 respondents, the majority of whom came from within the immediate vicinity of the park (B30 postcodes), there was a question and answer session.

Q1: Where is the exact location of the building to be?

A 1: Between the main path and the children’s play area so that parents using the building can keep an eye on their charges.

Q2: Will any trees need to be taken down?

A2: No.

Q3: It doesn’t look as though the entrance doorway will be accessible for wheelchair and double buggy users but it must be a fully accessible building.

A3: Agreed and we will feed this back to the architect.

Q4: Is it intended to sell alcohol from the building?

A4: No.

Q5: Will it not attract more anti-social behaviour into the park?

A5: No. We find that the presence of more people in a park tends to discourage anti-social behaviour, which in any case is very low at Cotteridge Park.

3Discussion and Comments

Following an open discussion about possible, appropriate and inappropriate uses of the building, participants were asked to make their own views known using post-it notes on the pros and cons of the proposals relating to the:

  • Uses of the building
  • Design of the building
  • Operation of the building
  • Other issues.

Some post-its were positioned on the boundary between the pros and cons columns so in reporting these points a third ‘ambivalent’ column has been inserted in the tables below. Where a number of people made the same point, that number is enclosed in () brackets.

3.1Uses of the Building

Pros / Cons
Toilets (6) are essential; means can stay in the park longer (2); sometimes toddlers can’t hold it
Meeting up place (4) to ease loneliness (2); friendship mornings (2); parent/toddler groups; vulnerable groups – LGBT, elderly, neuro-diverse, persons of colour, carers
Wi-Fi access (3)
Café (3) with warm drinks to encourage winter activity; basic food
Walkers (2) and runners (2)
Sports (2) and if food and drink available
Resting point for those with mobility issues (2)
Exercise meets
Groups can spend more time together before and after activities
Memory cafe
Language classes
Hot desking Mon- Fri
Homework group
Toy box
Spray art activities to add colour and sun to the park
Cakes made by local residents
Water point for dogs
Board game groups
Somewhere to sit down
Men in Sheds
Repair café
Soup kitchen
Rent out for childrens parties and group meetings / Creates a pressure to buy something
Building will be too small for the wide range of uses envisaged
Too many uses will dilute the community feeling
Will need cleaners
May become smelly if used for exercise classes
Too big for the park
Cost of upkeep
Too small to be seen as an indoor space for activities
Danger of mission creep
Building will exacerbate the existing problems of vandalism and antisocial behaviour
The Stirchley Community Centre already provides such facilities

3.2Design of building

Pros / Ambivalents / Cons
Cover/awning to side of building needed (7) for dog walkers, buggy park
Eco/sustainable design (3)
Scale (2)
Discrete, well sited and in keeping with the spirit of the park (2)
Keep interior as flexible as possible (2)
Gender neutral toilets needed
Got to be accessible
Toilets need to be open even if café closed
Storage space of chairs etc. needed
Compost toilets
Paths to building need better lighting and surface upgrade
Green roof and walls would be attractive
Solar panels to be self-sufficient
Space for multiple guide dog owners for free running / Build nearer car park (2)
Sail type awning – near to but not adjacent to building
Bigger kitchen area needed to accommodate group cooking sessions
Design out features that could be vandalised
Think it all through now as adding features is expensive / Lighting is poor (2) and needs to be improved; will it be lit at night?
It is at the bottom of the hill - re DDA - getting out might be a problem
Paths need improvement near Midland Road entrance and parallel to Franklin Road
How will it be secured at night?
Is it big enough to accommodate all that is wanted to do?
A big building will be costly to run and empty a lot of the time
Parking

3.3Operation of building

Pros / Ambivalents / Cons
User groups could take it in turns to look after the building
Self-sufficient/self-directed (2)
Could generate revenue – needs to be decent coffee
A poor quality building may put off volunteers from running the café
A franchise creates need for profit motive
Opening times – is breakfast a possibility?
I think the presence of the building would decrease the amount of vandalism and antisocial behaviour…the constant supervision would scare them off
Café with locally made products (2) I’ll make coffee and cakes
Will build links in the community as people get involved
Will build social inclusion / Need dedicated staff as core team (2) (maybe supplemented by volunteers)
Not sure about proper café – like the idea of a popup instead
Who decides – possible tension between user groups – needs coordinators / Who will clean the toilets?
What guarantees are there that the building will be maintained?
How will it be accessed by service vehicles?
Volunteers low funding
Lack of volunteers
Volunteer café = rubbish coffee

3.4Other issues

Pros / Ambivalents / Cons
Presence of people is a good inhibitor of antisocial behaviour
I would find it much easier to encourage local friends to join classes if we could go for a coffee afterwards
Love it all!
De-escalation training for volunteers would be useful to manage antisocial behaviour
Going forward to avoid going backwards (especially loss of park keeper)
Amsterdam/Rotterdam/Zaragoza parks all have these spaces no matter the size / How do we consult with non-internet savvy residents? Door to door? Leaflets? Does the planning permission process require this?
Safety of volunteers
There is some noise from antisocial groups in the evenings
Can we encourage more sports groups to use without building? / Inappropriate view of what a local park should be and try to do
Parking will be problematic. Will the next proposal be to extend the car park?
Inadequate consultation of local residents (who will be most affected)
Need a letter drop on local roads (2) for opinions and survey on current users
Need to learn lessons from other parks? Are they similar sizes?
The park is more actively used during the night when the responsible adults will not be there. A building/café is a different target to a container!

1

v2 31.10.17