Gunnersbury Triangle Local Nature Reserve

Consultation questionnaire: May – July 2011

Methodology The questionnaire was given to visitors to the reserve, reserve volunteers and staff, participants in events such as guided walks and local residents. 11 participants on the Earn Your Travel Back Scheme (which enables teenagers to earn back their confiscated travel passes by volunteering) also completed questionnaires. Questionnaires were anonymous, but respondents were invited to give their email address if they wished. The majority of questionnaires were completed solely by the respondents, but people using Chiswick Park tube and Sainsbury’s were interviewed by volunteers and their verbal responses were recorded. There were 313 respondents in total. The results of the questionnaire are summarised in question order corresponding to the questionnaire. Each question has a short summary/analysis commentary with selected typical/pertinent respondent comments and charts. Responses to questions 2 – 4 are grouped into broad categories and are expressed as bar charts. Yes/no responses (questions 6-25) are expressed as percentages and summarised as pie charts. The raw data is in spreadsheet format (see Appendix 1.) Summary of results Q1: Have you visited Gunnersbury Triangle Nature Reserve? Q5: If you have not visited, please tell us why. Only 36 respondents had not visited the reserve. The main reason given for this was being unaware of the

reserve (14 respondents).

“Like green spaces but didn't know it’s there - needs advertising.”

Other reasons included being too busy, not being allowed in with dogs, having a disability and having a buggy.

The latter two responses highlight the problems of accessing the Triangle when it is unstaffed. Although it is

open at all times, access is through a kissing gate which is difficult or impossible for people with buggies or

mobility aids to negotiate.

Q2: What did you like about the reserve?

83 respondents emphasised how much they liked the peace, quiet and tranquillity of the reserve. 58

respondents contrasted it with its urban surroundings, describing it as an “oasis”, “haven” or a “sanctuary”:

“So peaceful & calm, you can really forget that you in the middle of London”

“Feels like countryside on doorstep.”

51 respondents valued the reserve for its biodiversity value, noting its range of wildlife and habitat:

“Interesting range of wildlife/habitats for London. BAP species - stag beetle, slow worm & hedgehog”

“I've seen wildlife I haven't seen before”

37 respondents liked how the Triangle is “kept wild”, preferring it to more managed green spaces and 35 liked

its naturalness:

“Can walk around freely - not as worked on (modern) as the Wetlands Centre, so better”

“So wild and natural”

The 34 respondents who left the question blank or wrote N/A were among those who had never visited the

reserve. The 4 who liked “nothing” about the Triangle were two people unhappy about not being allowed to

take their dog into the reserve (and so probably just looking at the entrance yard) and two EYTB participants,

one of whom did not enjoy the tiring work!

The Triangle’s natural features (ponds, trees etc), its “greenness” and the fact that it provides opportunities

for children to explore/learn about nature were popular “likes”:

“Woodland, ponds, ripe raspberries, curious notices, hidden places between railway lines, maze of paths”

“Green and wild in city”

“A little oasis of nature. Perfect for kids to learn about the natural world, how humans interact with it and

personal responsibility”.

Other “likes” included the secluded nature of the reserve, its beauty, ease of access and 24 hour opening, the

activities on offer, friendliness of the staff / volunteers and 11 respondents simply liked “everything”!

The chart overleaf broadly summarises what respondents liked.

What respondents liked about Gunnersbury Triangle Chart

Q3: What did you dislike about the reserve?

The majority response (148 respondents) was “nothing” “N/A” or leaving the question blank. Once the

“never-visited” respondents are excluded, this leaves 112 with nothing to dislike, which is perhaps

encouraging!

Noise from trains, traffic and the building site and the Burlington Green development overshadowing the

reserve, were disliked by 16 and 13 respondents respectively, but probably unresolvable.

However, the state of the portacabin, feeling unsafe, the run down appearance of the reserve (particularly the

entrance), poor toilet facilities and litter were also disliked by many respondents:

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Peace/quiet/tranquility/serenity

Escape city/oasis

wildlife/biodiversity

Wildness

Natural

No response/NA

Natural features - pond, trees etc

Green

good for children

Beautiful/lovely etc

Secret/hidden

educational/interesting

Everything

Range of habitats

activities

Friendly staff/volunteers

Easy access

Well maintained

Big

Surprising

Good for walking

Changing seasons

Wildife haven

Nothing

Relaxing

Magical

Free/non-commercial

Mature

volunteering opportunities

“Seems like the kind of place a mum wouldn't want to visit on her own, not very friendly or inviting”

“Always anxious about being attacked.”

“Poor condition of cabin and entrance area - not inviting; litter. No-one on site to provide information. Lack of

toilet facilities”.

“It requires total revamping; care and attention”

13 respondents disliked “unfriendly” wildlife such as nettles, brambles, foxes, red ants and wildlife that refused to reveal itself on demand (e.g. bats during a bat walk)! This highlights the need for better environmental education opportunities / interpretation for visitors who are used to more manicured park or zoo environments.

A summary chart of respondents dislikes

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

Nothing / NA / no response

Train & traffic noise

cabin/hut

Scary/unsafe/insecure

New flats overshadowing

Nettles, ants, lack of visible wildlife

Building work/noise

Litter

toilets

Lack of management/maintenance

Antisocial behaviour/vandalism

Lack of signs / information

Layout / deadends / lack of shade or open areas

Lack of funding

Lack of staff

Run down/ shabby appearance

Too small

Entrance

Access difficult for buggies

Other

Lack of cafe or eating area

Unwelcoming

Lack of seating

Lack of activities/events/things to do

Lack of publicity

Fences & gates

Paths overgrown

Dogs

Lack of lighting in entrance

Q4: What changes would you like to see? The majority response (64 respondents) was leaving the question blank (56) or writing “N/A” (8). This could indicate that 28 of these respondents (i.e. excluding the non-visitors) thought that no changes were necessary. A further 35 respondents wrote “none”, “nothing” or “as few as possible.” 4 respondents specifically requested that the reserve is “kept wild.” The following comments highlight the desire to keep the Triangle as a wild space rather than a park or garden: “Leave the reserve as natural as possible - don't over commercialise / "visitorise" it please. It'll become just a

tourist attraction.”

“Very few - it's so exciting as it is” “I've been visiting for over 20 years. I actually love it as it is. However I realise it's not buggy friendly & accept changes are necessary” “...this area must retain its wild element- there are plenty of parks nearby for recreational purposes”.

36 respondents wanted a new visitor centre because the existing hut it is too small, too run down, gives a poor impression of the reserve and/or is unsuitable for children / public events: “The hut needs modernising if to be used for group events” “Like to see more guided talks on wildlife. A permanent, safe building to replace the hut for office and visitors space” “Better toilets & visitor centre which is safe for small children” 31 respondents wanted better signage, both information about wildlife and directions into and around the reserve: “More attention to effective signposting, highlighting things worth seeing that non-experts might miss” “Perhaps a bit more subtle signage, as we got lost” More staffing, more activities and events (especially for children) and sometimes dubious “wildlife improvements” (i.e. gardening or farming, species introductions, or unrealistic expectations about seeing wildlife on demand) were popular suggestions for change. “Staff throughout the year. You should advertise more!” “More events for kids like the one today.” “Less ivy on trees” “Maybe a few chickens (you can sell the eggs)”

A Summary Chart of Changes suggested by respondents

Q6. Do you support the need for a nature ranger? 88% of respondents supported Additionally, in question 4, 18 respondents specifically identified more staffing as a change they would like: What changes would you like to see? - “More people on hand to show visitors around” In questions 3 & 4, safety, site management and providing information were cited as reasons for why staffing is important. There was also positive feedback about sessional / part time staff currently employed at the reserve:

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

No response /NA

New visitor centre / building

No change / keep as it is

Signage /info

More activities esp. For kids

Regular / more staffing

Wildlife "improvements"

Entrance improvements

Maintenance / management

Other

Seating / benches

Publicity/branding/advertising

Cafe / canteen

New fence

Improved security / locked gate

Improve toilets

More people / better used

Open up paths

Surveying and species record

Improve steps & pond platform

Bins

Better facilities

More open space

rubbish/litter clearance

increase size of reserve

Open for longer

Hide

Investment / funding

As suggested by questionnaire

Better access

What did you like about the reserve? - “Staff/volunteers were wonderful”.

What did you dislike about the reserve? “Bit isolated, concerned that as an enclosed space in a built up area it

could attract unstable individuals and it's not necessarily sufficiently staffed to deal with any issues arising

from that scenario....”

What did you dislike about the reserve? “Underfunded / understaffed for local demand”

What did you dislike about the reserve? - “Happier when warden is there”

Q7. Would you prefer us to employ a ranger for 2 days per week all year round or 5 days per week for the summer only? 63% of respondents favoured employing a ranger for 2 days per week all year round: “Much better to have a year round presence, the reserve has something to offer all year and a continual presence is better for local people and deters anti-social behaviour” “I have heard people mention that the reserve does not seem very welcoming in the winter, and I think this is correct. I think a ranger all year round would give a sense of continuity, and would really benefit the management of the area. There is always potential for additional volunteer support at busier times of year” Only 15% of respondents favoured employing a ranger over the summer only: However, 22 respondents felt that a ranger/s should be employed more days per week than suggested in the question. 3 respondents stressed the need for a warden at weekends to engage children and combat antisocial behaviour: “Not enough days. 2 days all year and 5 days summer” “Weekend cover to prevent vandalism” “I would say neither, it would make more sense to have a ranger available a number of days a week during term time to enable school trips and during the summer holidays for number of dedicated days/events” The high number of “no response”, “no preference” and “neither” responses, as well as ambiguous responses to this question possibly indicates that respondents found the question difficult. Q8. What is your opinion on replacing the portacabin with a new building?

72% respondents in favour

“Yes. It’s foul as it is and it needs replacing”.

“No. We don't go for info, we go for peace, bird song, earthy smells, butterflies – to get away from buildings” Several respondents commented that this is a priority, that the building should be rustic e.g. a “log cabin” and not too big. One noted that the reserve should remain open access rather than being accessed through a building. The high non-response rate probably reflects the repetition in the questions 8 & 9. Q9. What is your opinion on replacing the portacabin with an environmentally friendly building?

88% respondents in favour

“Yes. Dan (8) likes the paintings. Replace with environmentally friendly building with paintings on the outside” “No, keep costs to a minimum.” Many respondents added positive comments or ideas about the type of eco-building they would like (wood, straw bale, sedum roof, earthship). The main caveat was cost, with several people commenting that they only supported it if it was affordable. Q10. What is your opinion on having a classroom and education facilities in the building?

77% respondents in favour

“Yes. Also consider an interactive or educational website specific to the reserve” “No, too much pressure on children, not necessary.” Many respondents were very much in favour of education opportunities for children (several identifying it as a change they would like to see in question 4), but several felt that this education should be outside on the reserve rather than in a classroom setting. There were also concerns that a classroom would need a large building or be too expensive. Q11. What is your opinion on having volunteer facilities (toolstore, washroom etc) in the building?

88% respondents in favour

“Yes. volunteer support vital”. “No, the cabin is fine. Use the money to pay for a ranger all year round” Whilst in agreement, several respondents felt that the tool store should not

necessarily be inside the building. Q12. What is your opinion on having an information space (leaflets, books etc) in the building?

90% respondents in favour

“Yes. Or maybe just a small leaflet area. The books currently at GT are hardly ever used by visitors”. “No to leaflets and yes to books” This was the most uncontroversial suggestion with the largest majority in favour. Interestingly however, few people commented on it compared with the significant number of respondents who asked for more information signage on the reserve in question 4. Q13. What is your opinion on having a cafe in the building?

48% respondents against

“Yes. Run by a suitable social enterprise? There is a lack of independent, affordable veggie cafes locally. Would mean a presence on the reserve if LWT only has a part time warden, as well as encouraging local "green" jobs.” “No, this would ruin the character of the place. GT is wild – put a café in and it becomes Kew or Chiswick House” This was by far the most controversial suggestion, with a majority against it. Many respondents added comments emphasising their opposition, unhappy about commercialisation of the reserve, seeing it as inappropriate and noting that there is too much local competition. However, some respondents felt that a summer kiosk or vending machine would be an acceptable alternative. Others noted that it could be a source of income. In contrast, 9 out of the 11 teenagers on the EYTB scheme were in favour of a cafe, with 4 of them disliking the lack of an eating area and 2 suggesting that a canteen should be built. Q14. What is your opinion on having parking facilities (for site management vehicle only)

56% respondents in favour

“Yes - also for other vehicles”. “No response. Want disabled access parking” “No. Absolutely NO”

Many respondents were against parking facilities with some questioning the need for a site vehicle space, exhorting staff to use public transport instead. Others saw it as a necessary evil, but noted that it should be limited to 1 or 2 spaces only and should avoid using up too much space. Two respondents identified a need for parking for other vehicles, e.g. for disabled access. Q15. The building is likely to be larger than the existing cabin, and face onto Bollo Lane. What are your views on this?

62% respondents in favour of proposal

“Any new building should be SMALL. Please don't overdevelop the site or

over manage or "improve" the reserve”

“If it fits in with the environment and is open and spacious than that would be fine. There are many examples of lovely natural looking buildings” “This is just a local wildlife woodland- it shouldn't be developed”

“Good, with the new building coming up, it will help to improve area.” “That makes sense, it would give the place more presence, which is what is currently lacking.”

“An inviting face would allow the Triangle to develop as a community facility.” The majority (102 respondents) supported this proposal without comment and 96 had no view or didn’t respond – possibly as they didn’t see the position of the building as being of much significance. 32 respondents supported the proposal because they felt it would make the reserve more noticeable/inviting and attract more visitors. This contrasts with those (12 respondents) who wanted the building to blend in with the reserve surroundings, and perhaps also, those who emphasised keeping the building small (11 respondents). Several (13 respondents) agreed with the proposal on the grounds that the surrounding area was built up anyway and that the new building would not be as intrusive as the Burlington Green development. 3 respondents suggested that the building could be combined with the entrance to the reserve – this would change the open access nature of the reserve.

Summary chart of respondents views on larger, new building facing Bollo Lane

Q16: Replace the front gate and fencing – currently it is rotten and insecure. Q16: 86% respondents in favour

“No, repair.”

"Yes, but not locked."

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

OK / fine / good etc

Don't know / NA / no view

Make reserve noticeable/inviting

Fine as surroundings are developed

Unobtrusive / fade in to surroundings

Small / not too big

Fine as it is / against proposal

Necessary to be larger

In keeping

Fine if it's eco / green

OK if attractive

OK, but not facing Bollo Lane

OK if it doesn't take greenspace / trees

Building should be combined with entrance

Depends on design

Anything better than current hut

Refurbish existing cabin

OK if secure

OK if cheap (use funds for education)

Good will improve area

Q17: Replace the tarmac entrance area with a free draining, gravel

based material to give a more natural look and prevent flooding which

is a recurring problem.

Q17: 84% respondents in favour

“No, flooding is due to drains. Remedy is outside the Triangle.”

“Yes, only if necessary."

Q18: Replace the fencing on the reserve’s northern boundary

(bordering Colonial Drive) as it is broken and insecure.

Q18: 88% respondents in favour

“No, repair.”

“Yes, for safety reasons."

Q19: Resurface the main path around the Triangle to improve disabled

access and make it less muddy

Q19: 62% respondents in favour

“No, need to keep it natural not so it becomes a "garden" and looks over

managed”

“Yes, this should be as natural-looking as possible, please"

Q20: Improve the signage to help visitors find their way around the

reserve and give wildlife information.

Q20: 73% respondents in favour

“No, it's too small & enough just to explore - part of the joy.”

“Yes, not too 'corporate' looking though"

Q21: Install 3 litter bins to make the Triangle more visitor-friendly

Q21: 70% respondents in favour

“No – don't think bins will make much difference. Providing signs not to

litter and a rubbish bin at entrance has not improved the litter situation

over the last year at all.”

“Yes, only metal would be appropriate. Plastic/wood can burn - and it

would!”

Q22: Install 2 picnic tables to make the Triangle more visitor-friendly

Q22: 55% respondents in favour

“No. People will burn the tables, it will not be kept tidy and will attract vermin.”

“Yes, very good idea."

Q23: Install new benches to make the Triangle more visitor-friendly

Q23: 76% respondents in favour

“No, it must NOT become a municipal park”

“Yes, rustic looking ones - not like park benches”

Q24: Install a wider dipping platform and rail beside the pond to

improve safety for educational activities

Q24: 68% respondents in favour

“No, the more structures, the less space for nature”

“Yes, the small bridge across the pond is not child friendly as it has no

railings and when we did ‘pond dipping’ from the bridge there was no

room for others to get past. I was worried about so many people and

children crowded on such a narrow walkway above the water.”

Q25: Carry out detailed surveys on the Triangle’s plants and animals, to help with long term wildlife

management and protection.

Q25: 91% respondents in favour

“No, why?”

“Yes, very important for the long term”

Conclusion

The majority of respondents were in favour of all the development proposals, except for the cafe. More staff

cover throughout the year is a priority, especially in the light of respondents concerns about personal safety

and antisocial behaviour. The proposed building design and its potential effect on reserve access should be

subject to further public consultation.

However, it is clear that most respondents want to keep the “wild” feeling of the Triangle which is unique

compared with other greenspaces in the vicinity. There is also a fine balance between keeping the secluded

“oasis” quality which is a valued by many respondents and making the reserve more visible to attract more

visitors.

Popularity of the proposed developments can be summarised, possibly to assist future prioritisation, as

follows:

1. Carry out ecological surveys (91%)

2. Employ a ranger (88%) for a minimum 2 days per week (63%)

3. Replace cabin with eco-building (88%) with information space (90%), volunteer facilities (88%),

classroom (77%) and limited parking space (56%) for necessary vehicles (e.g. bringing tools/materials,

volunteer groups and disabled access). The building could face onto Bollo Lane (62%) to raise the

profile of the reserve.

4. Replace northern boundary fencing (88%)

5. Replace front gate and fencing (86%)

6. Resurface entrance area (84%)

7. Improve signage into and around the reserve and provide suitable wildlife interpretation. (73%)

8. Install new benches in rustic style (76%)

9. Install litter bin (70%) – several respondents requested one bin at the entrance only, rather than the

suggested 3.

10. Install a wider dipping platform and rail beside the pond (68%)

11. Resurface main path (62%)

12. Install picnic tables (55%)