CONSULTATION STARTS HERE - THE REPORT, THE RESULTS
CHAPTER 2 - THE
QUESTIONNAIRE
2.1 |
In 2000, the Campaign
invited a number of experts in landscaping, architecture and
design to join a consultation panel. The remit of the panel
was to develop a consultation document to be placed before
the community when the time was right to do so. |
2.2 |
The Campaign had twice
before consulted the public as to the future of the Park. In
1998 the Campaign published a discussion document entitled
The People's Park. Then in 1999 the Campaign invited the
community to advance their own ideas for the regeneration of
the Park. From these, two themes emerged. |
2.3 |
First, it became obvious that the Park needed to be considered as a whole. The Top Site raised particularly acute issues, but those issues could not be considered in isolation from the rest of the Park, which had become fractured by the piecemeal approach adopted over the last century. Second, so many ideas were being expressed that it would have been impossible to reduce them to just a few for further consideration. These factors guided the consultation panel in the formulation of this consultation exercise. |
2.4 The panel decided
to divide the Park into four areas: (1) - the
Top Site, which had been the main focus of
the Campaign. (2) - the Museum Area,
the site of the Crystal Palace Museum, whose
knowledgeable and dedicated volunteers keep the
history of the Palace alive, albeit on a
shoestring. (3) - the Main Park,
comprising the open spaces of the Park, including
the lawns, lakes, terracing and small scale leisure
facilities. (4) - the Sports Centre, an
existing, well used but neglected facility,
occupying substantial ground in the heart of the
Park. |
2.5 |
Within each area, a
spectrum of options was devised. At one end of the spectrum
was an ecological option. At the other was a commercial
option. Within each option was a cluster of possible uses.
So, for example, the ecological option included nature
trails and an ecology park, while the commercial/leisure
centre option included a hotel, small cinema or bowling
alley. While not every possible use of the Park was included
in the spectrum, the intention was to provide a range of
uses from natural, non-built uses, to commercial buildings,
in order to gain a general view of the community's
preference. We do not hold our spectrum to have been the
only possible set of choices, but we do believe that it has
allowed us to elicit a full range of views. |
2.6 |
Once the panel had drawn
up the consultation questionnaire, the Campaign's steering
group approved the format, with slight revisions. It was
decided to add a question as to whether the Top Site should
be built on at all, since this single question encapsulates
a central issue in the disparate opinions expressed within
the community. We decided to ask those who answered YES to
elaborate. We also invited general comments. These open
questions have spawned a stimulating and thoughtful range of
answers. |
2.7 |
The questionnaire was
shown to, and approved by, senior individuals from two of
the country's main polling organisations. The questionnaire
was also tested on members of the public to ensure that it
was understandable and user-friendly. |
2.8 |
The questionnaire was included in a Campaign newsletter published shortly after the announcement, in May 2001, that the multiplex cinema development would not be proceeding. It is reproduced overleaf in Figure 4 and Figure 5. |
Figure 3: A Park visitor filling in the questionnaire
Top
of page
Report
Contents
Go
to Chapter 1 - Introduction
(previous page)
Go
to Questionnaire form
Go
to Chapter 3 - Distribution (next
page)
Crystal Palace Campaign March 2002 - Consultation Starts Here
Copyright: Day, Kolvin, Sacks 2002
Last updated: 26 March 2002