REC(21)90.01a Hall Farm Road Sports Ground Consultation

REC(21)90.01a

Hall Farm Road Sports Ground Consultation Survey Results

There were 51 responses overall having distributed around 250 leaflets. Everyone who attended the open event was encouraged to complete a survey if they hadn’t already done so.

Findings

People were asked to rate the enhancements from 1-7, with 1 being the highest.

16 selected football goal as 1^st choice, however it should be noted that 12 had it as their last choice.

14 selected improvements to stream/wetland area as their 1^st choice.

Looking beyond 1^st choices, if you looked at the enhancements that were given a rating of 1-3 as the most popular and those given a rating of 5-7 as the least popular, the results are as follows:

Most popular enhancements (given a rating of 1-3):

1. Wetland area improvements (28)
2. Football goal (26)
3. Play equipment (25)
4. Basketball (23)
5. Benches/seating (20)
6. Planters (16)
7. Picnic (15)

Least popular enhancements (given a rating of 5-7):

1. Planters (30)
2. Picnic benches (25)
3. Goal (23)
4. Basketball (23)
5. Benches/seating (20)
6. Play equipment (19)
7. Wetland area improvements (15)

Additional suggestions:

Zip wire

2 goals and not just one (5 requests)

Wildlife planting

Floodlights and astropitch

More trees

Outdoor gym equipment

Quiet place to sit

Enforce dog fouling regulations

Multiple benches for older generation to meet and chat

BBQ area

Community garden with raised beds

Swings and slide

Table tennis

Enclosed dog area

Owl/bird boxes

Climbing frame with slide and tunnel

Grit bins

Lighting

Monkey bars

Skate park

More bins

Concerns raised about:

Antisocial Behaviour, noise and vandalism. If a basketball post was installed consideration should be given to the placement (away from fences) and installing a quiet surface.

Respondents:

Most respondents use the area for play therefore strong consideration should be given to providing play provision. Dog walkers make up another significant percentage of those who responded. There seemed to be no strong support for planters or a community garden. Respondents wanted to be kept informed about developments but there was a limited response regarding ongoing help with maintenance.

 Suggested Enhancements:

• Football goal(s). Decision on location and number required. (https://www.fitness-sports.co.uk/football-goalposts/socketed-steel-ant-vandal-goalposts-FBL-044.html – cost c.£1k)
• Improvements to the wetland/stream area (see report from SWT REC(21)90.01b) (cost tbc)
• Play equipment (cost c£5-10k which could be covered by a grant/PlayPot)
• Bench – perhaps just one initially (cost c £350)
• Move the bin so it is out of the undergrowth and nearer the seat (cost – free)
• Install additional bin (cost £245)
• Adding bird/bat boxes would be relatively easy and inexpensive and would require little ongoing maintenance (cost c.£200)
• Creating a wildlife/wilder area near the fence could be possible, if it doesn’t interfere with the football ‘pitch’ but some residents may complain about it looking unkempt and untidy. Signage would be needed to explain the approach. (cost tbc)
• Further trees could be planted as part of the Queen’s Canopy project (cost – free)

Should play equipment be installed consideration must be given to the ongoing associated maintenance costs.

Councillors are asked to:

• Note and comment on the report
• Decide which enhancements, if any, they wish to proceed with

Pip Alder

Asst Clerk and Management Officer

November 2021