Crystal Palace Campaign report21

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

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.

2.5	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.