PP SD no 8 Evaluation plan

Stage 2 HLF submission - February 2015

Peel ParkEvaluation plan

PP-13-06497

1

Contents 1. Introduction 2. What is Evaluation? 3. Selection of Outcomes 4. Indicators 5. The Baseline Data 6. Targets 7. Methods 8. Telling the Story; Reporting the results 9. A Programme for Evaluation 10. Resources

Appendices A. Evaluation Framework : B. Information Required for Evaluation C. People Counter Instructions; D. People Counter results August 2014 to January 2015 E. Mock Green Flag Assessment 2013 F. Fixed point photographs; G. Resident/Visitor Survey Sample Questions H. Summary of Results of Visitor and Resident Survey 2013 I. Summary of Results of Student Survey November 2014 J. Summary of results of surveys at events K. Contacts

2

1. Introduction 1.1 Peel Park in Salford is one of the nation’s earliest examples of an urban public park. It

was designed, constructed and opened in 1846 to provide unrestricted recreational space to all classes of society. The park later became the location for the Museum, Library and Art Gallery which again pioneered free access to all classes of society. Later still it was the site of the Technical College which formed the basis of the University of Salford.

1.2 The historic core of the park itself is 10 hectares in extent. Combined with the adjacent David Lewis Playing Fields and Crescent Meadow it is the largest green spaces in the city and there are nearly 30000 people living within 1.2km of it. It is located next to the Peel Park Campus of the University of Salford and close to an area of major regeneration activity on Chapel Street.

1.3 Over recent years Peel Park has suffered from a reduced maintenance programme and limited investment. Many of its heritage features have been removed over the past century and there are issues surrounding access, security and visibility which have limited its use. However, there is still a lot of local pride in the park and a friends group has recently been formed to support its restoration1.

1.4 Salford City Council working with the Friends of Peel Park intends to restore the most historic part of Peel Park. Salford City Council has received a development grant from the Heritage Lottery Fund and is now developing the Stage 2 submission to the HLF for Parks for People funding. The council aims to undertake physical improvements to the park which will include the restoration of some of the original features. In addition to the capital works, a programme of activities and events is planned to encourage a wider range of people to visit the park.

1.5 Part of the HLF bid is for a new park-based ‘Park Keeper’ post for five years, who will manage the programme of activities and training along with ensuring that the maintenance of the park is carried out to a high quality. They will also work with and support the Friends Group as well as co-ordinate volunteering. The Park Keeper will also play a major role in evaluating the benefits of the project on the users of the park and the local community. This Plan is intended not only to support the bid but also to act as a guide to the Park Keeper on the requirement of evaluating the project

2. What is Evaluation?

2.1 In its guidance on evaluating Parks for People projects the Heritage Lottery Fund

defines evaluation as:

1 Friends of Peel Park www/friendsofpeelpark.co.uk

3

“A process of thinking back in a structured way on what has worked and why as your project progresses and reaches completion2”

2.2 Evaluation is required to assess whether the project is achieving the goals of both the Heritage Lottery Fund and the Council. The Heritage Lottery Fund requires that investment in the project has contributed to the overall aims of the Heritage Lottery Fund and the Parks for People programme. This is not only a matter of the amount of money spent on restoration of features or the number of activities but ensuring that the funding has made a real difference to people’s lives and given them a greater appreciation of the historical significance of the park. Similarly, Salford City Council has to ascertain whether its investment in the park is achieving its own aims and benefitting both local communities and the city.

2.3 The process of evaluation requires the collection and analysis of statistics, costs and incomes but to provide a complete picture it is necessary to “tell the story” of the project and the difference it has made to people’s lives. This can be done through statistics but it has more impact if individuals involved in the project record their own impressions experiences likes and dislikes, for example by narrative, photographs and painting or by film.

2.4 Information is of two types:

• Outputs; the actual intervention in terms of physical changes to the park (area of landscape created, number of events and what happened at events).

• Outcomes; the impact the project as a whole has on the park and the lives of users and the neighbourhood.

Of the two categories, ‘Outcomes’ are the most significant; there is little point in carrying out a project if it cannot be shown to have in some way improved people’s lives.

3 Selection of Outcomes

3.1 The Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF) specifies the type of Outputs that projects funded

through their grants should achieve: 1a The Park and its heritage will be better managed. 1b The Park and its heritage will be in better condition. 1c The heritage of the park will be identified and recorded. 1d The heritage of the park will be better interpreted and explained 2a People will have developed skills. 2b People will have learnt about heritage. 2c People will have volunteered time. 3a The local community will be a better place to live, work or visit.

2 Heritage Lottery Fund Evaluation Guidance Parks for People March 2014 Part 1

4

3b Negative environmental impacts will be reduced. 3c More people and a wider range of people will have engaged with heritage3

Effectively, they represent what the HLF require the project to achieve. The Outcomes have been incorporated into the Evaluation Framework which sets the targets for the project (see Appendix A).

3.2 The Stage One bid to the Heritage Lottery Fund and the supporting document submitted by Salford City Council in August 2013 set a specific vision and objectives for the restoration of Peel Park. In effect these provide a set of outcomes for this particular project: “What we say we will achieve in Peel Park.” These broadly correspond to the outputs specified by the HLF as indicated in Appendix A. In summary these are:

Vision

“To create an attractive, well used park for 21st century living providing a place for enjoyment, inspiration, reflection and a source of local pride”

Aims • Restore Peel Park, as far as possible, to the structure of 1890, reintroducing

some of its historic features while improving the public facilities required by today’s park users.

• Create a city park for Salford providing a high quality green space for all visitors.

• Preserve and enhance an important part of Salford’s heritage and social history for the enjoyment and education of future generations.

• Restore a venue for small scale cultural activities attracting visitors from all sections of the city.

• Enable better understanding of an important part of Salford’s heritage and social history.

• Ensure that the park is safe and accessible to all. • Encourage greater use of the park by providing a diverse range of activities. • Re-establish the links between recreation and learning through activities and

links with the Salford Museum and Art Gallery. • Celebrate the role the park has played in the life of the city. • Enrich the delivery of educational programmes by use of the park by schools,

colleges and the University for study and recreation. • Improve the city’s cultural offer, benefiting users from across the city. • Ensure all development is sustainable in terms of management and

maintenance. • Strengthen the links with the park users and community and make this once

again “A Park for the People.”

3 Evaluation Guidance for Parks for People March 2014 Figure 1

5

• Encourage better community involvement in the development, management and maintenance of the park, through programme of events, training and education4.

4. Indicators

4.1 To show in an objective fashion how outcomes have been achieved, indicators which

can be measured are required. In its Monitoring Data Reporting Sheet for Parks for People the Heritage Lottery Fund gives a range of indicators for each required outcome. Parks for People funding is a national scheme which supports a wide variety of public open spaces. Therefore the Parks for People Monitoring return provide a range of mandatory indicators to show how the project is performing against key outputs while other indicators are optional. These can be selected depending on the particular circumstances of the project (shown in italics on the monitoring form). Additionally there is an open question which can be to show how the difference the project has made to people’s lives.

4.2 Peel Park is an urban park but unlike many similar parks it has no residential areas directly associated with it. Although it is nationally significant in the history of public parks it has relatively few historic structures. It is therefore proposed that data is not collected for the following optional indicators:

• Number of buildings to be brought back into active use; there are no buildings within the park

• Buildings or features removed from the “at risk” register; there are no buildings or features on the “At Risk Register” maintained by English Heritage

• Areas of wetland protected or created; the landscape plan prepared for stage 2 does not incorporate wetlands.

• Areas of woodland protected or created; there are no areas of woodland within the park.

• Area of water bodies protected or created; there are no water bodies in the park and it is not proposed to create any

• Areas of coastal or marine habitat protected or created; the park is inland. • Volunteering activities: retail. It is not anticipated there will be retail

opportunities in the park. • Number of specific species projects. No species specific projects are proposed

in the Activities Plan.

5 The Baseline Data

5.1 Indicators need to be tested against the situation as it was before the project started; “The Baseline”. This information is normally collected at the Development Stage

4 Peel Park Heritage Lottery Fund Bid 2013 Parks for People Programme Supporting Document Page 43

6

although in the case of Peel Park a lot of information was collected before the stage one application was submitted through: • A mock Green Flag assessment carried out in 2013 (see Appendix E). • Visitor survey carried out in 2013 (see Appendix H). • Survey of residents within 1.2km of the park 2013 (see Appendix H)

The results have been incorporated into the Evaluation Framework (Appendix A).

5.2 The number of visitors is automatically counted by people counters sited at the busiest entrances in 2014. Extrapolation of the results from the people counters suggests that the annual number of visitors to the park is 55000. This is higher than the initial estimate and has resulted in the target number of users being raised. Results from the surveys of users and the fact that there are morning and afternoon peaks in visitors suggests most of these are passing through the park rather than lingering (see Appendix H). An Observation Study (see paragraph 7.5) would help more accurately determine where visitors go in the park and which entrances they use.

5.3 The Green Flag Award Scheme is a national benchmark for parks and green spaces

managed by a consortium of Keep Britain Tidy, British Trust for Conservation Volunteers and Greenspace. Parks are assessed by independent judges on the basis of eight criteria:

• Whether it is a welcoming place? • Whether it feels healthy, safe and secure? • How clean and well maintained it is? • Is it maintained in a sustainable fashion? • Are conservation and heritage features well managed? • The extent of Community involvement in its management? • The marketing of the park. • The Management Plan.

The pass score is 42. A mock assessment was carried out in January 2013. Peel Park scored 33 but the assessment gave a useful objective summary of the faults of the park and what could be done to remedy them (see Appendix E):

5.4 A residents and visitor survey interviewed 90 people within the park and 438 in face to face interviews in the area surrounding the park during the summer of 2013. Questions were based on the Annual Parks for People monitoring return and the results were compared to the broader population of the area (from the 2011 census). The survey also collected people’s views on the park and how it could be improved. A summary of the results are given in Appendix H.

5.5 Out of resident interviewed, 73% had visited the park once in the last year. The park was valued for its tranquillity and greenery in an urban area. Most visitors were from

7

local postcodes suggesting that the park operates as a neighbourhood park rather than a city park.

5.6 The condition of the park and difficulties in finding and accessing the park were the main reasons for not visiting. There is a feeling that the Park is isolated, poorly signed, and poorly serviced. Some residents are unsure who it belongs to and whether they could use it (due to its proximity to the University of Salford campus). A comparison of the age profile of users and that of the City of Salford and the local area suggests that under-25s are under-represented amongst user (despite the proximity of the University and the growth of a younger population in Salford). Non-white British residents were also underrepresented amongst the users although Salford is becoming increasingly ethnically diverse and the University attracts a large number of foreign students. There is also under representation of people with disabilities in an area where 11% of the population have a disability that limits their day to day activity. The on-site disabled parking and access proposed may help increase use by the disabled.

5.7 Situated as it is, students are likely to be major users of Peel Park. A survey was

conducted in November 2014 by interviewing students in the Peel Park Campus (nearest the park). This used the same survey questions as the residents and visitor survey. The majority of students interviewed never or rarely visited the park; the main reason was a reputation as being unsafe and the lack of any real need to go there. Visits were short; most were for 30 minutes or less. Like the general public the park was appreciated as a green space in a mainly built up area (see Appendix I).

5.8 The Council holds regular events in the parks. A small sample of visitors attending these events is interviewed mainly to find their views about the event. Surveys were carried out at three events in 2013 and in 2014 (see Appendix J). Most visitors were first-time visitors to the park but they lived locally and found out about the event by ‘word of mouth.’ Not surprisingly, given the nature of events most interviewed were young families and no one was aged over 60. The main factor deterring repeat visits were the lack of facilities, supervision and maintenance of the park. The events themselves were popular and attracted 1842 people.

5.9 Increased numbers of volunteers will play an important part in the management and maintenance of the park and a record was kept of numbers attending events. Nine volunteer maintenance sessions have been held in the park in 2014 and attracted 39 volunteers. The majority of the baseline figure for volunteering in 2014 have been the activities of the Friends group. In total 513 hours were contributed to the development of the bid. Members of the friends group have also visited events to promote the park.

5.10 A series of photographs from fixed points within the park were taken during the summer of 2014 as a record of the park before restoration took place (see Appendix F). The evaluation programme in Chapter 8 requires further photographs to be taken

8

from these points throughout the life of the project. This is in addition to other photographic activities within the park.

6 Targets

6.1 The Heritage Lottery Fund requires that targets be set against the selected indicators. The HLF sets few specific targets, the main one being that improvements to managing your park or cemetery will mean that the park can attain a Green Flag Award with a high level pass mark. Generally the indicators in Peel Park which are assessed by a Green Flag score will aim for particular aspects to achieve a minimum standard of “Good” in the assessment.

6.2 The applicant has therefore to set their own targets. Those for indicators which relate

to the demography of visitors have been set to reflect the population of Salford as a whole, as at the 2011 census. This reflects the aim that it should be once again a city park attracting visitors from across the city. However, events and activities may attract attendees from a wider area and the demographic characteristics of the population within the Manchester post code area have been used to set the targets for events. Conversely, volunteers may be expected to be more local in origin and the Evaluation Framework aims to match the characteristics of the local population i.e. within 1.2 km of the park. As the scheme progresses particular groups may be found to be under-represented in activities. If this is the case targets may need to be adjusted and activities to attract those groups developed.

6.3 An additional target has been added for volunteers undertaking historical research (Appendix A ref 7). This reflects the importance of interpreting and explaining the history and role of the park through archives and reminiscences.

6.4 Targets for the opinion of visitors have been derived from the survey carried out in 2013. The targets require a significant increase in the number of visitors viewing the park positively. Thus for the Indicator of “overall visitor satisfaction” should increase from 73% in the 2013 survey to 90% after completion of works (Outcome 1 in Appendix A).

6.5 Other targets such as the number of facilities provided and the nature of activities are derived from other bid documents, notably the landscape plan and the Activities Plan.

6.6 The targets can be reviewed to reflect changing circumstances but any changes will

be to be justified using the results of evaluation.

9

7 Methods

A. Visitor Numbers 7.1 Measurement of visitor numbers into the park is made difficult by the lack of

boundaries and numerous entrances. Basic information on the number of visitors to the park is provided by two People Counters which respond to the body heat of visitors passing within 3 metres. These are housed in steel posts at the busiest entrances to the parks. Numbers are recorded automatically by day, month and year but it is suggested that they are downloaded to a laptop and analysed monthly. The basic analysis should identify how the number of visitors varies by day of the week and hour of the day but this could be extended to study the effect of the weather, season and any events being held in the park, at the Museum and Art Gallery or at the University.

7.2 The location of the people counter was determined by a “Calibration Survey” carried

out on a midweek day in May 2014. This indicated the busiest entrances to the park. They also recorded the number entering and leaving at each location and basic information about visitors, cyclist (mounted and dismounted) and pedestrians’ age and sex. The calibration survey has been cautiously used to extrapolate the basic information from the people counters to give an indication of entering and leaving the park by different entrances (although this is not a substitute for visitor surveys). Appendix C gives more details of the People Counters. Appendix D gives the results for the first six months of their use.

7.3 The location and use of entrances into the park is likely to change over the life of the

project, particularly with the completion of the student village to the north of the park in 2015. It is also possible that the identity of visitors to the park will change. It is therefore suggested that a further calibration survey is carried out after the student village has been open for a year in 2016 and after the physical works have been carried out to the park. Surveys should be carried out mid week and in term time. The People Counters should be retained and data analysed for the life of the project. However, at least one recorder may need to be relocated if the location of the busiest entrance changes.

7.4 One of the ambitions of the project is to provide digital interpretation of the history

and features of the park. It will also be necessary to record the number of hits on the park website together with the number of times guides or apps associated with the park have been downloaded. The means to record of this data will be a necessary part of the design of websites and applications.

B. Green Flag Assessment 7.5 A key target is achieving and maintaining the Green Flag status. Green Flag awards

are the benchmark national standard for parks and green spaces in the UK. Parks are assessed by independent judges using accompanied and unaccompanied visits.

10

Applications for assessment must be made annually by the end of January with a decision in July. Analysis of the Green Flag assessment can provide useful information for the evaluation of a range of targets and a record should be kept of the scores in each of the criteria outlined in paragraph 5.3. It is suggested that an initial application is submitted once capital works in the parks are completed and then made annually. The Green Flag award must be obtained for a minimum of seven consecutive years.

C. Surveys 7.6 The success of the Parks for People funding is measured by the beneficial impact

this has on users of the park and local people. The obvious way of obtaining this information is by survey. Face to face interviews using standard survey forms were effective at the pre-application stage in capturing the views of both visitors to the park and residents within 1.2km of the park in a single survey. The Broughton Trust community enterprise was used to carry out these surveys. This is based in the area around the park and employed local people to do the survey (which may have generated a higher response rate than bringing in outside survey companies). Demographic information was also collected and analysed to determine whether respondents match the general population profile from the 2011 Census. These surveys are expensive to run and cannot be used every year. It is suggested that one is run towards the end of the project period. These could be supplemented by additional surveys of park users by volunteers such as; • Visitor surveys; either face to face interviews or using postal or online

questionnaires, will help helping understand where visitors are coming from, what they do in the park and their suggestions for how the park and their experience of if it could be improved

• Observation surveys allow an estimate of how many visits are being made to a park, the type of people who are and are not visiting, the activities they engage in and which parts of the park are well and less well used5.

• Targeted surveys to determine what particular groups want. • School participation; numbers of pupils and staff and the activities carried out,

together with feedback on the success or otherwise of the activities. • Activities such as performances, films and text could be used to record the impact

the park has had on people living in the area and how its restoration has affected them.

Allowance has been made for volunteer expenses to run one or more additional surveys.

D. Activities and Volunteering 7.7 Assessment is also needed of activities and volunteering. Obviously, a record needs

to be kept of the activities provided, together with broad estimates of numbers attending. More detailed surveys by face to face interview are currently carried out by

5 This records the number, demography and activities of visitors to the park at a fixed frequency over a set period (for examples see the Epping Forest surveys on the City of London website www.cityoflondon.gov)

11

Rangers and volunteers at events in Peel Park, mainly to gauge visitor satisfaction. These should also identify who is attending events and how far they travel. There is the risk that face to face interviews becoming too long, particularly at the end of events and such surveys may need to be supplemented by other means e.g. postal questionnaires (possibly linked to prize draws), or questionnaires attached to the sale of tickets or request to join email lists.

7.8 A record will need to be kept of volunteers to collect basic demographic information.

The information only needs to be collected once for each volunteer but a record is also needed of days worked by volunteers (a day is considered equivalent to seven hours) and the activity they are engaged in. Volunteer case studies (recording the experience of individuals who volunteer) should also prove enlightening. This may be done buy face to face interviews and also questionnaires. Case studies should consider failures in volunteering (perhaps where volunteers cease to attend sessions) as well as successes.

E. Other Evidence 7.9 The HLF also emphasises the need to “tell the story” of the project in a way which

mere statistics cannot provide. This will be particularly useful in highlighting successes and difficulties in implementing the project and the actual difference it makes to individuals. This would therefore require the recording of information on: • Project management; project timetables (and performance against the

timetable), staffing issues, expenditure. • Implementation including proposals, tenders and contracts and technical

issues • The difference made to heritage; records of restoration of feature (principally

through before and after photographs), wildlife, memories, archive research and discoveries interpretation and publications.

• The difference made to people; records of activities, key events, surveys, correspondence.

7.10 A key historical reference has been the Park‘s Head Gardener’s Record Books 1874-1887 and the Annual; Report to the Park Committee 1846-1915. A similar record and reporting system could be used to tell the story of the restoration of the park through a ‘Park Keepers Daybook’. This would record events, (scheduled and non-scheduled), volunteering, weather, correspondence and conversations. It should tell of lessons learnt and possible solutions as well as achievements. It may be in the form of a paper record or through social media. It may also include video, photography and other media. However the information is recorded it should be in a form which is retrievable for the final evaluation and future projects.

7.11 A summary of the methods for assessment is given in Appendix B.

12

8 Telling the Story; Reporting the results

8.1 Evaluation is required to prove that the project is achieving the goals of the Heritage Lottery Fund and that investment in the project has contributed to the overall aims of the Heritage Lottery Fund and the Parks for People programme. This is not only a matter of money having been spent on restoration of features or the number of activities but that the funding has made a real difference to people’s lives and given them a greater appreciation of the historical significance of the park. Similarly Salford City Council has to prove that its investment in the park is benefitting both local communities and the city. Specifically, it has to prove that it has achieved the aims for the project set out in paragraph 3.2

8.2 At the most basic level each Parks for People project informs the Heritage Lottery Fund of its achievements in two ways; • Annual Parks for People Monitoring Return; core data based on the outputs

given above • At the end of the project an Evaluation Report which provides an evaluation of

what has been delivered and what overall impact the project has made.

8.3 The Parks for People Monitoring Return is made every February throughout the life of the project. It covers each of the Parks for People outcomes (see paragraphs 1.2). Projects are expected to collect and present targets and data relevant for their project. Parts 4 and 5 of this Evaluation Plan and the Evaluation Framework (Appendix A) show what indicators and targets the Peel Park Project Team propose to measure for this return. Additionally, the returns seek qualitative information about the impact the project has had on individuals, groups, the park itself or the wider community in a 200-300 word “story”. The requirement for this annual return provides the focal point for data collection and evaluation process.

8.4 At the end of the project the project team will produce a Project Evaluation Report

which demonstrates what has been achieved against all of the programme outcomes. This means it is important that monitoring and evaluation is a continuous process and that responsibility for this is clear at the start of the project to allow for changes in staff etc. This will be done through this Plan but other plans produced in the development phase will also contribute to baseline data and returns. It will also require specific resources to be set aside throughout the life of the project to carry out monitoring and evaluation (see Chapter 10).

8.5 Continuous evaluation of the project can also have wider benefits:

• Indicate whether the project has to adjust to changing circumstances and then justify those changes.

• Surveys etc. are a way of engaging with users and local residents about the park and better understanding their needs.

13

• Information from evaluation can help challenge assumptions. This is particularly important in the case of Peel Park which is often assumed to be part of the University campus.

• Provide lessons for other projects both within Salford and nationally. • Progress against targets provides motivation and encouragement for the team. • Provide a positive story for press and politicians.

8.6 The achievements and issues of the project will need to be reported to the managing

group, the Council and The Friends by the Park Keeper. A regular report is already made to the Working Group (which consists of representatives of the Assistant Mayors, ward Councillors, University and the Friends). This could continue through the implementation of the project although responsibility for producing this would rest with the Park Keeper. It would be informed by:

• Progress with the implementation of the project • Feedback from activities and volunteering • The ‘Park Keepers Daybook’ referred to in paragraph 7.10.

The monthly report could take the form of a newsletter, notices within the park for users, blog and entries on the website/Facebook. It would also provide an opportunity to raise issues.

8.7 An annual evaluation report for the managing group, City Mayor and corporate

directors in Salford City Council will be an opportunity to celebrate achievements and identify issues with the management group, friends and representatives of users.

9. A Programme for Evaluation

9.1 Continuous evaluation of the project has many advantages and will be a key part of the Park Keepers role (scrutinized by the managing group). This is best achieved through a regular programme as set out below. Other tasks such as surveys can be contracted out. Daily a) Record weather, events and activities both within and

outside the park. This can be compared to the numbers visiting the park taken from the monthly download from people counters to identify the reasons for variations in attendance (Outcome 10A in Appendix A).

b) Park Keepers Daybook (Outcomes 2, 3, 5A, 10B in Appendix A)

c) Update website, Facebook page and Twitter feed etc.

Monthly a) Download count from people counters. Extrapolate numbers at each entrance entering and leaving and other information from the Calibration survey

14

(Outcomes 10A). b) Monthly report to managing group/Friends

Annual a) End of January. Application for Green Flag Assessment (result in July). Informs Outcomes 1, 2, 5A, 5B, 8, 9 in Appendix A.

b) February. Parks for People Monitoring Data Reporting Sheet including audit of progress of project (e.g. number of facilities, historic structures restored etc.)

c) January-March. Assessment of activities and school visits in the previous year terms of numbers and identity of attendees. If necessary revise targeting with the Working Group/managing group

d) January-March. Decision about surveys in the next financial year.

e) March. Annual Evaluation Report

9.2 Other evaluations will be undertaken on a more infrequent basis:

• Fixed point photography. As a minimum, carried out before works start, on completion of capital works and at the end of the project (informs outcomes 4 and 6 in Evaluation Framework Appendix A). See Appendix F for locations.

• Peel Back Time study As a minimum, before works start, on completion of capital works and at the end of the project with an exhibition towards the end of the project. However this could also be an evolving feature on the parks website/Facebook page. Informs outcomes 4 and 6 in Appendix A

• Survey of participation in activities and event; a sample survey should be carried out for each event (Informs Outcomes 5A, 8, 10 in Evaluation Framework).

• Record of volunteering. Details of new volunteers should be recorded when they first start. For each volunteering event a record should be kept of the type of activity and the number of person-hours (number of people volunteering multiplied by the number of hours spent on the activity). Outcomes 5B and 7

• Visitor Survey. As a minimum a full survey (based on the questions in Appendix G) should be carried out towards the end of the project but other surveys could be carried out by volunteers. Informs outcomes 1, 2, 4, 6, 10A.

• Residents survey As a minimum a sample of residents within 1.2km of the park (as set out in the footnote to Appendix H) should be carried out towards the end of the project. Informs Outcomes 1, 2, 4, 6, 10A.

• Stories about the Park. This may be in the form of historic information through reminiscences, academic research or community archaeology projects. It may also take the form of contemporary responses to restoration, activities and volunteering recorded in the Park Keepers Daybook.

15

10 Resources

10.1 Much of the burden of the day to day evaluation will fall upon the Park Keeper. This could be supplemented by volunteers carrying out some surveys. Volunteers may not always be suitable for all surveys (for example, the Calibration Survey may require professional surveyors because of the long hours required) Additionally, the use of online surveys and postal questionnaire may help reduce the burden in certain instances although it should be borne in mind that these are not always as effective as face to face interviews. The tables below estimate the resources required for evaluation through the life of the project :

Financial Cost over life of project

Development Stage

Item No. Unit Cost

£ Total Cost TimingPeople Counter

Purchase 2 1,500.00 £ 3,000.00 2014Calibration Survey Initial Install 1 725.00 £ 725.00 2014Installation 2 300.00 £ 600.00 2014

£ 4,325.00 Implementation Stage People Counter 2015-2020

Calibration Surveys 2 775.00 £ 1550.00 2015-2020

Relocation after completion of Student Village

1 300.00 £ 300.00 2016

Replacement Batteries 6 15.00 £ 90.00 2015-2020

People Counters Total £ 1940.00

Surveys

Visitor Survey (volunteer expenses)

1 500.00 £ 500.00 2017

Visitor and Resident Surveys

1 4,500.00 £ 4500.00 2020

2015-2020

Total Cost of Evaluation £ 6940.00

The Green Flag assessment is budgeted separately to the evaluation costs at £1842 for six assessments

Estimated Staff Time (Primarily the Park Keeper) per year

Evaluation Activity (see above)

Unit time Total Time per year

Park Keepers Daybook 0.5 hrs per day ) 110 hrs

16

Monthly

Download and extrapolate count 3 hours per month 36 hrs

Monthly Report 7 hours per month 84 hrs

Annual

Application for Green Flag 7 hours 7 hours

Parks for People Monitoring Data

7 hours 7 hours

Annual Evaluation Report 16 hours 16 hours

Annual Total 260 hours per year plus 1 hour per

activity

17

Appendix A Peel Park Evaluation Framework Ref- Aims for Peel

Park Indicators Baseline Target Method Resources

1. HLF Output:- The park and its heritage will be better managed

Ensure all development is sustainable in terms of management and maintenance.

Green Flag score overall 33 42 Plus Green Flag Assessment on completion of works and annually 2016-2020

£1842 Six assessments at £307 each

Green Flag Score 10 litter and waste management

4 “Poor” 7 plus (“Good” to “Exceptional”)

Green Flag Score 11 Grounds maintenance and Horticulture


Green Flag score 18 Arboriculture and woodland management


Green Flag Score 12 Building and Infrastructure Maintenance


Overall Visitor Satisfaction with Park

73%6 90% Visitor and resident Surveys

£5000 Survey 2020 £4500 Visitor Surveys £500

6 Very Satisfied or reasonably satisfied of visitors in 2013 survey

18

Ref- Aims Indicators Baseline Target Method for Evaluation Resources 2. HLF Output: Park and its heritage will be in a better condition

Preserve and enhance an important part of Salford’s heritage and social history for the enjoyment and education of future generations.

Restore Peel Park, as far as possible, to the structure of 1890, reintroducing some of its historic features while improving the public facilities required by today’s park users. The project will create a city park for Salford and providing a high quality green space for all visitors.

Green Flag Score; 8 Appropriate provision of facilities Green Flag Score; 9 Quality of facilities

4 “Poor

5 “Fair”

” 7 plus “Good” to “Exceptional” 7 plus “Good” to “Exceptional”

Green Flag Assessment on completion of works and annually 2016-2022


Fixed Point Photography (see Appendix E)

Volunteer time (Photography Club) & Park Keeper time

Green Flag Score; 21 Conservation of buildings and structures

4 “Poor” 7 plus; “Good” to “Exceptional”



Number of facilities Play Area

57 Annual assessment of works completed from contracts and measured for Parks for People Monitoring Data sheet and Annual Report

Park Keeper Time Volunteer Time

Repair/restoration of historic features

0 58

Enhancement of Landscape Features

0 69

Re-construction of lost Features

0 410

Improvements to Infrastructure 0 911 Fixed Point Photography; (see Appendix E)

Volunteer time (Photography Club) & Park Keeper time Area of grassland protected or

created 33151sq. m12

80389sq. m13

% residents/visitors agreeing park is in good condition

58% 85% Visitor and resident Surveys £9000;-Two surveys at £4500 each

7 Play Area, Park Keeper Office, Disabled Parking, Event space, wifi 8 Refurbish steps and terrace, Restore historic paths, restore Flood Marker, events space on site of bandstand, restore formal bedding area 9 Woodland management to open up views and create events space, tree and shrub planting, resurfacing of paths and steps, creation of a "focal point" at confluence of paths, species rich grassland on banks, selective bulb planting. 10 Historic paths recreated, recreation of formal bedding in historic core, opening up of park by selective woodland management including creation of event space around site of bandstand. 11 3825m2 Paths Improved/created, 11 new seats, 5 new bins, 17 refurbished lights , refurbished play area, Wifi, park keeper office, 2 refurbished steps, 3 disabled parking 12 Neutral semi improved grassland/amenity grassland. Preliminary Ecological Assessment by Urban Green for Salford City Council 2013 13 Amenity Grassland 50235m2 plus Wildflower Meadow 30154m2

19

Ref- Aims for

Peel Park Indicators Baseline Target Method for Evaluation Resources

3. HLF Output: The heritage of the park will be better interpreted and explained

Enable better understanding of an important part of Salford’s heritage and social history. Celebrate the role the park has played in the life of the City.

Number of physical on site interpretation methods

0 414

Annual assessment of works completed from contracts and measured for Parks for People Monitoring Data sheet and Annual Report. Recorded in Park Keeper Daybook

Volunteer time Park Keeper Time Staff at Salford Museum and Art Gallery time Staff at University of Salford time

Number of promotional methods or tools used

1 3

Number of learning partnerships formed with other organisations

0 615

Number of “new technology” interpretation

0 316

Number of and participation in events to interpret/explain heritage

0 1617 Event surveys Audience Surveys

14 Graphic Panels, Orientation points, interpretative text and tactile items, interpretative phrases on bench seating (Interpretation Plan 2015 PRB Ltd) 15 Learning partnerships to be formed with four local primary schools, Albion Academy and University of Salford. Activity Plan 2015 16 App, website based on BCC iWonder structure, 3D model and augmented reality showing the park as it was in the 1890s, digital interpretation points in the park (Interpretation Plan 2015 PRB Ltd) 17:Research and display of materials in the events in the history of the park through exhibitions, recording of memories and archaeology 3 Exhibitions.,1 Opening Event, 50 memories recorded and a permanent record created, Activity Plan 2015

20

Ref- Aims for Peel Park

Indicators Baseline Target Method for Evaluation Resources

4. HLF Output: The heritage of the park will be identified/recorded

Enable better understanding of an important part of Salford’s heritage and social history.

Number of heritage elements previously hidden now available to the public through the Peel Back program of research and display of materials in the events in the history of the park.

N/A Three Peel Back Time Exhibitions during the life of the project.

Annual assessment of activities for Parks for People Monitoring Data sheet and Annual Report Visitor Counts

Volunteer time Park Keeper Time Staff at Salford Museum and Art Gallery time Staff at University of Salford time

50 memories recorded and a permanent record created

7% of visitors who agree that they have a good understanding of the heritage value of the site

25 % of visitors who agree that they have a good understanding of the heritage value of the site

Visitor and resident surveys Event surveys Audience Surveys

Resident and visitor survey £4500 Visitor Survey(s) £500 plus volunteer time.

Unexpected finds relating to the heritage of the park

What was discovered? How was it found? What difference did it make to people?

N/A N/A Visitor and residents surveys Peel Back activities Event Feedback Audience Surveys

Recorded in the Park Keepers Day book and annual report

21


Indicators Baseline Target Method for Evaluation

Resources

5A . HLF Output: People will have developed skills; Education

Encourage better community involvement in the development, management and maintenance of the park, through programme of events, training and education. Enrich the delivery of educational programmes and improve the city’s cultural offer.

No. Classes engaged. Number of students engaged. Students develop a have a sense of pride in the park.

2 Local primary Schools Five Classes

114 Pupils in 2014

4 Local schools engaged. 8 primary classes engaged p.a. 230 Primary school students pa. Albion Academy engaged in activities in the park. 60 secondary school students involved in projects in the park p.a. 40 University students involved in projects in the park p.a18.

Feedback from students Feedback from staff Number of visits by primary, secondary and university parties. Number and % of activities with an educational element Recorded annually in the Parks for People Monitoring Data sheet and Annual Report

Park Keeper time Ranger time School, college and University staff time

Green Flag Score 26 Provision of Appropriate Educational Information



£1842: Six assessments at £307 each

18 Based on Activity Plan 2015. Includes use by students from the School of Environment and Life Sciences and Sports Science and on sport and fitness related courses

22

Ref- Aims for Peel

Park Indicators Baseline Target Method for

Evaluation Resources

5B . HLF Output: People will have developed skills; Volunteers and staff

Encourage better community involvement in the development, management and maintenance of the park, through programme of events, training and education. Enrich the delivery of educational programmes and improve the city’s cultural offer.

New jobs created (FTE)19

0 1 Employment of uniformed Park Keeper Years 1 to 5

£151,000 pa. 36 hours per week New project development £17,000

Green Flag Score 22. Community Involvement in management and development

7 “Good” 9 “Excellent” Green Flag Assessment on completion of works and annually 2016-2020


Number of staff attending structured training activity20

0 2 Record kept by park keeper/ ranger

Park Keepers Journal

Number of volunteer attending structured training activity

0 30 pa. (3 training sessions p.a.)

Volunteer Case Studies. Face to face interviews Annual assessment of volunteering from records kept by Park Keeper of number volunteering, who volunteers, hours of volunteering, training and qualifications obtained. Used for Parks for People Monitoring Data sheet and Annual Report

Park Keeper time Ranger time Trainer time Volunteer time

Number of qualifications attained

0 20 p.a.

19 Plus one FTE through the input of volunteers 20 Accredited training only. On the job training will be given to all volunteers

23


Indicators Baseline Target Method for Evaluation

Resources

6. HLF Output: People will have learnt about heritage

Enable better understanding of an important part of Salford’s heritage and social history.

% of visitors who agree that they have a good understanding of the heritage value of the site

7% 25% Visitor and resident Surveys Audience Surveys and Event feedback


Number of people engaging with heritage/learning activities

0 1000 in life of project

Count at activities based on an estimate at “open activities” and “register “ of those attending activities where pre-booking is required/visitor and resident Surveys

Staff Time Volunteer time

7. HLF Output: People will have volunteered time Encourage better community involvement in the development, management and maintenance of the park, through programme of events, training and education

Number of volunteer events p.a.

27 4121. Annual record made of volunteer events; numbers attending, hours and training

Park Keeper time Ranger time

Number of volunteer hours 484 hours 1631plus hours pa.

Volunteer Case Studies Face to face interviews. Annual assessment of volunteering from volunteer and training registration of number volunteering, who volunteers, hours of volunteering, training and qualifications obtained.

Park Keeper time Ranger time Management 256 hours22 206 hours

Maintenance 141 hours23 480 hours Horticulture 0 625 hours Capital Works 0 0 hours Marketing inc. fund raising 37 hours24 42 hours Historical Research 50 hours25 72 hours One off Events 0 206 hours

21 Based on Activity Plan; 25 meetings of Gardening Club, 6 of Volunteer Rangers, 10 Student Volunteers. 22 Based on volunteer participation at Friends and Working Group Meetings, Friends Visits , Friends Admin and advice from the BBC and University of Salford 23 - Salford Park Ranger Team and student volunteering 2014 24 Friends attendance at events 25 Development and Implementation of the first stage of the Peel back Community Archive project

24

Ref- Aims for

Peel Park Indicators Baseline Target Method for


7. HLF Output: People will have volunteered time cont.

Volunteer Profile and Gender

31% Male26 53% Male Demographic information collected from volunteer and training registration. Volunteer Case Studies. Face to face interviews. Annual assessment of volunteering from records kept by park keeper/ranger of number volunteering, who volunteers, hours of volunteering, training and qualifications obtained. Used for Parks for People Monitoring Data sheet and Annual Report.

Park Keeper time Ranger time

69% Female 48% Female Volunteer Profile: Ethnicity 82% white

18% BME Volunteer Profile: Disability 10% Disabled Volunteer Profile: Age

Increase participation from the 25-44 age group

26Gender recorded for maintenance volunteering in 2014. Profile not recorded for management activity

25

Ref- Aims for

Peel Park Indicators Baseline Target Method for


8 HLF Output: Your local community will be a better place to live, work or visit

Create a city park for Salford and provide a high quality green space for all visitors Enhance the setting of Salford Museum and Art Gallery. Restore a venue for small scale cultural activities attracting visitors from all sections of the city Improve the city’s cultural offer Strengthen the links between the park user and community and make this once again “A Park for the People”

Green Flag Score 33% 42% Green Flag Assessment on completion of works and annually 2016-2022


% of people who agree that there is good community spirit where they live

54% 80% Visitor and resident Surveys Audience Surveys Event Feedback

Resident and visitor survey £4500 Visitor Survey(s) £500 plus volunteer time. % of residents who agree

the park enhances their quality of life

Information not collected

75%

% of residents who agree that overall the area feels safe

82% 95%

Number and % of activities that are cultural (including music and theatrical events ) and number of participants

2013/4: Two events (22%)

Min. 10 events. 1% all events27

Count at activities based on an estimate at “open activities” and “register “of those attending activities where pre-booking is required. Audience Surveys Event Feedback Annual assessment for Parks for People Monitoring Data and Annual Report.

Park Keeper Time Museum Staff Time Volunteers

• Number of joint events between Park and Museum

• Number of participants

2013/4: 0 8 events28 1000 participants.

27 Based on Activity Plan; One Tree (two exhibitions), Sounds from the Other City (3 events), Theatre (one event), Film Festival (one event), Photography Group (3 exhibitions) 28 Based on Activity Plan; Three Peel Back Exhibitions, Two One Tree Exhibitions, Three Photography Exhibitions.

26

Ref- Aims for

Peel Park Indicators Baseline Target Method Resources

9. HLF Output: Environmental impacts will be reduced

Ensure all development is sustainable in terms of management and maintenance.

Green Flag score for Environmental impact (Sustainability Indicators)

46%

70% plus



Green flag score 14 Environmental Sustainability

Not Collected 7 plus (“Good” to “Exceptional”)

Green flag score 15 Pesticide Use

5 Fair 10 (“Exceptional”)

Green flag score 16 Peat Use

10 Excellent 7 plus (“Good” to “Exceptional”)

Green Flag score 17 Waste Minimalisation

4 Poor

7 plus (“Good” to Exceptional”)

27

Ref Aims

for Peel Park

Indicators Baseline Target Method Resources

10A. HLF Output: More people and a wider range of people will have engaged with heritage

Visitors To be used by visitors and students from the surrounding institutions, as well as local residents. Encourage greater use of the park by providing a diverse range of activities and ensuring the park is safe and accessible for all.

% of users who agree that the park feels very safe, safe or fairly safe

82% 95% Visitor and resident Surveys Event Feedback forms Audience Surveys


Number of facilities for the disabled

0 329 Annual assessment of activities for Parks for People Monitoring Data sheet and Annual Report

Park Keeper time

Fixed Point Photography (See Appendix E)

Volunteer time (St. Phillips Photography Club)

29 Three disabled parking bays within park, DDA compliant ramped access to middle terrace, seat in middle of pre-existing ramped access (on advice of Access consultant)

28

Ref Aims for Peel Park

Indicators Baseline (2013)

Target Method Resources

10A. HLF Output: More people and a wider range of people will have engaged with heritage

Visitors Enable better understanding of an important part of Salford’s heritage and social history Celebrate the role the park has played in the life of the City

Visitor Numbers p.a. 55000 120,000 Two automatic people counters at busiest entrances to park

Purchase, location, calibration and maintenance 2014-2020 £12,915 Park Keeper Time

% male 42% 50%30 Visitor and resident Surveys Event Feedback Audience Surveys

£9000 Two surveys at £4500 each

%female 58% 50% % white 92% 90% %BME 7% 10% % disabled 8% 10% Largest Age Group visiting

25-45 (40% visitors)

Increase 56 Plus age group to 36% visitors and under 25 to 33% visitors

Smallest Age Group Visiting

Under 25 (26% visitors)

Most Popular Reason for visiting

Peaceful Retain this as most popular reason for visiting

Least Popular Reason for visiting

Activities Increase the proportion visiting to take part in activities

% of park visitors who do not live in the local area

9.2% 20% (visitors from Greater Manchester and Other)

% local residents have visited park in the last year

73% 90%31

30 Based on the population characteristics of Salford City 31 Based on the proportion in the 2013 survey who did not visit the park because of its condition, reputation or not knowing where it was.

29



10B. HLF Output: More people and a wider range of people will have engaged with heritage

Activities Encourage greater use of the park by providing a diverse range of activities and ensuring the park is safe and accessible for all

Number and range of activities including • Arts and Craft led • Educational • Cultural • Sport/Health • Natural history • Heritage • Community

2014: 12 events 32: Arts and Crafts 17% Community 33% Cultural 36% Natural History 8% Heritage 8%

679 activities.33

Park Keeper will keep a record with an annual summary of activities number of activities and attendance. This will include a record of school visits, teacher training, heritage events, cultural Natural history orientated (including species benefitting) and joint events with Salford Museum and University


69 Educational activities (10%)34 10 Cultural activities (2%)35 15 Natural History activities (2%)36 16 Heritage activities (2%)37 66 Arts and Crafts activities (10%)38 330 Sport/Health activities (49%)39 27 Community Activities (4%)40

32 Events organised by Salford City Council only 33 Based on the Activity Plan plus three one off events. Broughton Festival to be held in the park every other year 34 Based on the Activity Plan; 24 primary classes, 6 secondary school classes, 6 University classes, 24 Percy the Park Keeper (Story telling for under 5s), 9 volunteer training sessions over life of project 35 Based on the Activity Plan; 3 Photographic Group Exhibitions,, 2 ‘One Tree’ wood carving exhibitions, 3 Sounds from the Other City Music Festival, One theatre performance and one film festival 36 Based on the Activity Plan; 15 Park Life Walks 37 Based on the Activity Plan; 3 ‘Peel Back’ History Exhibitions, 15 Park Lie Walks, 1 Peel Back Memories activity 38 Based on the Activity Plan; 60 Photography Group Meetings,6 cycle maintenance sessions 39 Based on the Activity Plan; 6 archery sessions, 144 Get Outdoors exercise sessions, 144 Park runs, 36 Sunday Cycles 40 Based on the Activity Plan; Peel Back Opening event, 3 Broughton Festivals,, 5 Pink Picnics, 18 seasonal events.

30



10B. HLF Output: More people and a wider range of people will have engaged with heritage

Activities Encourage greater use of the park by providing a diverse range of activities and ensuring the park is safe and accessible for all

Total Number attending Act ivies in life of project

1842 in 2014 Minimum 5040 pa.(plus one off events) 30,860 over life of project41

Count at Activities Audience Surveys Event Feedback Forms Annual assessment of activities for Parks for People Monitoring Data sheet and Annual Report


% male 40.2% 49 % of participants % female 59.8% 51% of participants % Disabled No record 10% of participants % white No record 84% of participants % BME No record 16% of participants Age Under 25 33% 34% of participants Age 26-45 50% 28% of participants Age 45 plus 5% 37% of participants

41 Based on Activity Plan targets; Educational activity; 230 primary school children p.a., 60 secondary school children, 40 University students p.a.,1000 at Peel Back Event, 1500 attending Broughton Festival, 120 participating in Get Outdoors per year, 8640 p.a. participating in the Park Run, 120pa in Sunday cycle, 20pa bike maintenance, 480 pa health walks,200 children in Percy the Park Keeper, 450pa seasonal events, 800 attending One Tree Exhibitions, 500 attending theatre event, 500pa attending Pink Picnic, 500 attending film festival

31

Appendix B Information Required for Evaluation

Indicator Method Frequency Outputs Green Flag Assessment

Green Flag Score Mock Green Flag Assessment 2013 and Green Flag Assessment

On completion and annually 2016-2020

1. The Park and its heritage will be better managed 2. The Park and its heritage will be in better condition 8. Your local community will be a better place to live, work or visit 9. Environmental Impacts will be reduced

Green Flag Score; Category 8 Appropriate provision of facilities Green Flag Score; Category 9 Quality of facilities Green Flag Score Category 10 Litter and Waste Management Green Flag Score Category 11 Grounds maintenance and Horticulture Green Flag Score Category 12 Building and Infrastructure Maintenance Green flag score category 14 Environmental Sustainability Green flag score category 15 Pesticide Use Green Flag score category 17 Waste Minimalisation Green Flag score category 18 Arboriculture Green Flag Score; 21 Conservation of buildings and structures

32

Indicator Method Frequency Outputs Green Flag Assessment Cont.

Green Flag Score category 22 Community Involvement in management and development

Mock Green Flag Assessment 2013 and Green Flag Assessment Volunteer case studies Face to face interviews

Annual 5 People will have developed skills

Green Flag Score 26 Provision of Appropriate Educational Information

Facilities and Interpretation Record Number of facilities Fixed point photography

Recorded in Annual Report and Final Evaluation Report

At least two surveys (See Appendix E)

2. Park and its heritage will be in better condition 3. The heritage of the park will be better interpreted and explained 4. The heritage of the park will be identified and recorded

Repair/restoration of historic features

Fixed point photography Recorded in Annual Report and Final Evaluation Report

At least two surveys (See Appendix E)

Restoration of landscape features

Number of facilities for the disabled

Fixed point photography

Improvements to the Infrastructure

Fixed point photography At least two surveys (See Appendix E)

Area of Grassland protected or created

Single measure On completion of works

Number of physical on-site interpretation methods


Number of promotional methods or tools used to explain the heritage of the park


Number of hidden heritage elements now available

Peel Back Memories; A community archive to record memories etc

Ongoing

33

Indicator Method Frequency Outputs

Activities Record No. events to interpret/explain heritage


Annual 3. The heritage of the park will be better interpreted and explained 5. People will have developed skills 8. Your community will be a better place to live work or visit 10 More people and a wider range of people will have engaged with heritage

No promotional methods/ tools used to explain the heritage of the park


Annual

No. of learning partnerships formed with other organisations


Annual

No. of “new technology” interpretations


Annual

No. of projects researching and displaying material on events in the history of the park


Annual

No. of people engaging with heritage/learning activities

Event Feedback forms Audience Surveys Number of hits on the website Number of guides and applications downloaded

By event By event Annual Annual

No. and % of activities with an educational element:


Annual

No. classes engaged in educational activities


Annual

No. students engaged in educational activities

School participation surveys By Event

No. teachers on training days School participation surveys By Event No and % of activities that are cultural (including music and theatrical events ) and number of participants


Annual

No. of joint events between Park and Museum.


Annual

Participants; gender, age, ethnicity and disability

Event Feedback forms Audience Surveys

By Event

34

Indicator Method Frequency Outputs

Volunteer Record Number of volunteer events Park keeper will record events organised

through the park, the Friends and the University that take place or support the park in a Volunteer Record. A record will be made of who volunteers (in terms of gender, age, ethnicity and whether they are disabled) and compared to the population in the local area and for Salford overall. Records will also be kept of training and qualifications received. An annual summary will be produced for the report to HLF

By event plus annual report

7. People will have volunteered time

Number of volunteers attending structured training activity

Volunteer and training registration

Number of Qualifications obtained Record of training and qualification Volunteer case studies Face to face interviews

Number of volunteer hours total Volunteer and training registration Number of volunteer hours engaged in: Management (inc. Friends meeting)

Volunteer and training registration Volunteer case studies Face to face interviews

Number of volunteer hours engaged in: Maintenance


Number of volunteer hours engaged in: Horticulture


Number of volunteer hours engaged in: Capital Works


Number of volunteer hours engaged in: Marketing


35

Indicator Method Frequency Outputs Volunteer Record

Number of volunteer hours engaged in: Access


By event plus annual summary

Number of volunteer hours engaged in: fund raising


Number of volunteer hours engaged in: One off events


Number of volunteer hours engaged in: Historical Research


Volunteer profile: Gender, Ethnicity Disability and age


36

Indicator Method Frequency Outputs Visitor and resident Surveys

Visitor Numbers People counters (2) at busiest entrances Results downloaded monthly and compared to weather and events. Confirmed by annual calibration survey and other surveys

Download monthly and annual report

1 The Park and its heritage will be better managed 6 People will have learnt about heritage 8. Your community will be a better place to live work or visit 10 More people and a wider range of people will have engaged with heritage

Overall Visitor Satisfaction with the park

Visitor Survey Event feedback Audience surveys

Visitor surveys on completion of work in the park and at the end of the project (as a minimum). Event feedback and audience surveys by event. Annual report.

% residents/visitors who agree the park is in good condition


% of visitors who have a good understanding of the heritage value of the site


% of users who agree the park feels very safe, safe or fairly safe


% visitors from University/Salford College


Visitors by gender Visitor Survey Event feedback Audience surveys

Ethnicity of visitors Visitor Survey Event feedback Audience surveys

% Visitors disabled Visitor Survey Event feedback Audience surveys

Largest Age Group visiting Visitor Survey Event feedback Audience surveys

37

Indicator Method Frequency Outputs Visitor and resident Surveys

Smallest Age Group Visiting Visitor Survey Event feedback Audience surveys

Visitor surveys on completion of work in the park and at the end of the project (as a minimum). Event feedback and audience surveys by event. Annual report.

Most Popular Reason for visiting Visitor Survey

Least Popular Reason for visiting Visitor Survey

% of park visitors who do not live in the local area


% of people who agree that the park has a positive impact on the local community

Resident survey On completion of work in the park and at the end of the project % of residents who agree the

park enhances their quality of life % of residents who agree that overall the area feels safe

38

Appendix C People Counter Instructions Introduction This device counts the number of visitors passing it by registering their body heat. Two were located in the park in 2014 at the entrance alongside the Maxwell Building (G on the plan below) and the riverside entrance (B). They are intended to remain in the park throughout the life of the project and provide basic information about the number of visitors using the park on a daily basis Calibration The People Counters were located following a calibration survey to identify the busiest entrances and provide additional information which can be extrapolated from the basic count. This is done by a one day count of visitors at all entrances over seven hours. Three shifts of professional surveyors are used to avoid fatigue and ensure all entrances were covered. The entrances to the park are shown on the plan below:

Plan One Peel Park Entrances

39

The initial calibration survey was undertaken on 8th May 2014, a mid week when there were no events in the park and no extremes of weather. Surveys were taken of visitors at entrances B, C, E, F and G between 8am and 6pm by professional surveyors. Entrance A from Wallness Lane was omitted as it was closed due to the construction of the Student Village. A count was not taken at entrance D as the Irwell footbridge was closed. The busiest entrances to the park were found to be B and G. A copy of a typical survey sheet used is shown at the end of this appendix. Calibration surveys should be held in May 2016 (when the capital works should be largely complete) and in May 2018 in the same form as that carried out in 2014 for the baseline survey. Survey points should be selected to reflect changes in the park, This will mean that additional surveyors will need to be posted at points A & D when the entrance from Wallness Lane and Irwell Bridge are opened. People Counter Installation The People Counter consists of the light grey box with side sensor mounted on a steel chassis. The whole is contained in a black metal post with a cap secured by a padlock. The post has 4 holes in the base to allow it to be bolted to a concrete base or pad .The sensor beam projects through the opaque plastic window in the small hole at the top front of the post. A logger (the yellow box) is supplied to recording hourly totals of movements. The unit has a small green LED on the side of its case and this flashes every 4 seconds when the unit is recording. The unit is ready to start recording movements immediately the battery is connected. The brown core of the cable is to be connected to the terminal marked ‘+’ and the blue core to the terminal marked ‘-‘.The logger automatically stops recording when its memory is full. The counter is designed to detect body heat at adult chest height and the optimum range is 2 to 3 metres. The post should ideally be located at a natural pinch point where walkers are in single file and unlikely to be counted a number of times. Siting the unit close to a notice board or finger post can result in multiple counts. The post should be securely fixed in the ground with the small sensor hole at the top of the post looking directly across the path. Care should be taken to ensure that vegetation will not grow and obscure the beam. Setting up the Data Logger The Data Logger allows the number of visitors to be downloaded to the Log Master 1.2 program. It also allows the analysis of visitor numbers by day/ week or month. The Data Logger is contained within the small yellow box. This has two sockets; the one on the side is for the power supply to the 12V lithium battery that powers the People Counter and the socket next to the lights which provides a link to a laptop or pc via a USB port or serial plug using the converter supplied.

40

The Data Loggers may need restarting. Restarting may also be needed when the battery is replaced or if the loggers are stored out of use. To do this follows the following instructions:

1. Set up the Log Master 1.2 program if not done so already 2. Start up Logmaster 1.2 3. Plug the Data Logger into a serial port or USB port 4. Open the Logger Screen on the Log Master and clock on Restart

NB. ALL UNSAVED RECORDS WILL BE LOST 5. Create a new identity if necessary. The Data Loggers for Peel Park have the

following identities: 1. Path alongside the Maxwell Building (Entrance G) ” 2. Riverside Path (Entrance B)

6. Choose the maximum number that will be recorded. Normally 3060 people over 28 days

7. When screen indicates the logger can be disconnected. The green light on the logger should flash every 4 seconds

The Data Logger can be stopped (for example to put it into storage) by following the above sequence by clicking on “stop”. The logger will not record any more data until it is restarted. For guidance on downloading data and transferring to a database see the Help Files on Log Master 1.2 Testing The assembly should then be tested (see below) before the lid is replaced. The people counter has an LCD display showing the total number of movements recorded. The count is zeroed by pressing the small red button alongside the display. The counter has a Lithium battery (non-replaceable) which retains the count in the event of the main battery failing. The beam sensitivity is adjusted using the large black knob. Turning the knob clockwise increases the sensitivity and anticlockwise decreases it. Start by setting the knob at mid-range. The people counter has a green Battery Check button which causes the small red LED indicator alongside it to light up if the battery is connected and is healthy. If the indicator is not lit when the button is pressed, check that the battery is properly located inside the blue battery holder. Check the number on the LCD display and then walk in front of the post. The count should increase each time a person is detected. If multiple counts are given, then reduce the sensitivity and if movements are missed, then increase the sensitivity.

41

Please refer to Data Retrieval software for detailed instructions on the Logger operation. Maintenance The following items should be checked: a. That the small hole at the top of the post is unobstructed. b. The battery is a 12 Volt dry cell type, but is an industrial version which has been

sourced to ensure it gives reliable service at extreme temperatures. The battery should be replaced every 12 months. The use of similar batteries from other sources may result in loss of performance and records. Replacement batteries are available from the supplier JT Systems (see Appendix K).The battery life may be extended by wrapping it in a polythene bag to prevent water causing the electricity to track across the sprung battery terminals. This may only be necessary where the post is located in wet locations.

c. The Logger has a small battery inside it which should last approximately 2 years. This should be replaced after this time to ensure that the data held in it is not lost. It is recommended that the unit is returned to JT Systems at this stage (see Appendix J).

Calculating Visitor numbers from the People Counters The People Counters only measure the movement past the counter. Each Visitor will generate two movements; In and Out and these may be at different entrances (or, given the open nature of the park, at spaces between entrances). The Data Logger (the yellow box) is removed from the People Counter and attached via an adapter to a PC running Logmaster 1.2. The basic number of movements past each counter is downloaded from the logger in the form of a Microsoft Text table which has to be transferred and converted to MS Excel. The Calibration Survey measured the numbers coming in and out at each entrance between 8am and 6pm. This information can be used to give a total of visitors to the park in any month using the basic information from the People Counters:

a) Converting the Calibration survey results into a 24 hour result The Calibration Survey only measured the numbers entering and leaving the park in daylight hours. The People Counter has shown that even in winter people use the park after dark. The results from the Calibration Survey need to be adjusted to allow for this. This is done by multiplying the totals for each entrance and overall in the Calibration Survey by 1.28 (based on the proportion of visitors using the park between 6pm and 8am between August and December 2014). This applies only to the figures from the Calibration survey; the data logger works 24 hours a day.

42

b) Creating a Multiplier for the whole park To calculate the total number using the park from People Counters located at only one entrance a multiplier is needed. This is based on the total number entering the park in the calibration survey (multiplied by 1.28 to give an 24 hour figure as described above) divided by the number entering at the entrance where the People Counter is located. Therefore; A total of 124 people entered the park during the calibration survey. This is multiplied by 1.28 to give an estimate of the number through 24 hours; 159. Of these, 32 people entered by the entrance alongside the Maxwell Building (G) where Counter One is located (an estimated 38 over 24 hours). Dividing this into the total entering the park gives a multiplier of 4.13 i.e. for every person entering at entrance G just over four people entered the park as a whole. The other entrance where People Counter 2 is located (B alongside the Student Village) is busier and has a multiplier of 2.1. Only the numbers entering the park from the calibration survey are used to avoid double counting. A table at the end of this appendix shows the multipliers for each entrance based on the May 2014 survey.

c) Calculating numbers from one People Counter Where only one People Counter is in use the total number of visitors to the park can be calculated by dividing the total presented by the counter by the proportion in the calibration survey that entered at that point (it is assumed that everyone who enters the park leaves it!). This figure is then applied to the multiplier for that entrance to give an estimate of the total entering the park. Therefore;

In August 2014 there were 2018 people passing the counter at Entrance G (alongside the Maxwell Building). The calibration survey suggests that 48% of entering the park passed this point. Thus, we can assume that of the 2018 people passing the counter 969 were entering the park at this point in August 2014 (2018 multiplied by 0.48). Applying the multiplier for this entrance calculated in paragraph (b) above (4.13) gives an estimated total for the park as a whole total of 4004 visitors in August (969 multiplied by 4.13).

d) Calculating numbers from two People Counters From November 2014 two counters were used at the two busiest entrances. The calibration survey indicated that 72% of visitors entered by these two entrances and 28% by other entrances. The total number visiting the park can be calculated from the People Counter results from two entrances by multiplying the combined total of people passing both counters by a multiplier based on the numbers entering through these two entrances during the calibration survey, divided into the total entering the park by all entrances from

43

the calibration survey (adjusted to give a 24 hour total as in (a) above). For entrances B and G this multiplier is 1.28. Therefore;

In November 2014 the number passing the counter at the student village (Counter 2 entrance B) was 3051 and the number of people passing the counter at the Maxwell Building (Counter 1 entrance G) was 1586. The calibration survey suggests 57% using entrance B were entering the park while the proportion for entrance G is 48%. These are applied to the figures from the people counters in November to suggest that 1739 people came into the park via Entrance B (3051 multiplied by 0.57) and 761 people came into the park through entrance G in November 2014 (1586 multiplied by 0.48). The total number entering through these two entrances in November was 2500. As 28% of people came in other entrances in the calibration survey the total for the park as a whole in November is 3200 (2500 multiplied by 1.28)

44

Calibration Survey Results and Analysis May 2014

Entrance Type Total %

Total Multiplier for 6pm to 8am42.

Estimated Total for 24 hours

Multiplier for whole park (In only)

Entrance B Counter 2B - In Peds 49 47%

Cycles 5 5% Children 6 6% Elderly 0 0% Total 60 57% 1.28 77 2.1

B - Out

Peds 35 33% Cycles 4 4%

Children 6 6% Elderly 0 0% Total 45 43% 1.28 58

Total B 105 45% 1.28 134 Entrance C

C - In Peds 21 48% Cycles 0 0%

Children 0 0% Elderly 0 0% Total 21 48% 1.28 27 5.9

C - Out Peds 22 50% Cycles 1 2%


Total C 44 19% 1.28 56 Entrance E

E - In Peds 2 13% Cycles 2 13%

Children 0 0% Elderly 0 0% Total 4 27% 1.28 5 31

E - Out Peds 7 47% Cycles 0 0%

Children 0 0% Elderly 0 0%

7 47% Total E 15 6% 1.28 19

Entrance Type Total % Multiplier Estimated Multiplier for whole

42 Based on the average numbers passing through entrance G after 6pm August to December 2014

45

Total for 6pm to 8am43.

Total for 24 hours

park (In only)

Entrance FF - In Peds 8 32%

Cycles 1 4% Children 0 0% Elderly 0 0% Total 9 36% 1.28 12 13.8

F - Out Peds 7 28% Cycles 0 0%


Total F 25 11% 1.28 32 Entrance G Counter 1

G - In Peds 17 27% Cycles 8 775%

Children 1 2% Elderly 4 6% Total 30 48% 1.28 38 4.13

G - Out Peds 24 39% Cycles 6 10%


Total G 62 27% 1.28 79 Total for Park

Total

IN 124 54% 1.28 159 OUT 107 46% 1.28 137

231 100 1.28 296 1.38

43 Based on the average numbers passing through entrance G after 6pm August to December 2014

46

Sample Calibration Survey Form

Direction: In/ OUT Ref: Location: Day/Date: Surveyor: Weather: Use the Codes Listed at the Foot of the Form for each Time Period

Time Adults Children Elderly Any Person Using Pedal Cycle

Total Weather Beginning (<16) Or

Infirm Mounted Dismounted

0800 0815 0830 0845 0900 0915 0930 0945

Total

1200 1215 1230 1245 1300 1315 1330 1345

Total

1500 1515 1530 1545 1600 1615 1630 1645 1700 1715 1730 1745

Total Grand Total

Highways Forecasting and Analytical Services (HFAS) Transport for Greater Manchester (TfGM)

47

Appendix D People Counter Results August 2014 to January 2015

The estimated annual number of visitors to the park is: 55,000

This is based on the number of people passing the People Counters in Entrance G and B (see Plan One in Appendix C) between August 2014 and January 2015 extrapolated to provide a figure for 12 months. This is higher than the initial estimate and suggests that the target number of users could be raised. An Observation Study (see paragraph 7.5) would help more accurately determine where visitors go in the park and which entrances they use. However it is probable that most of these visitors are actually passing through the park rather than using it for activities. Visitor Numbers over time The chart below shows that, contrary to what might be expected, the number of people using the park in August is lower than in the autumn. This is due to the location of the park on the edge of a University Campus which is relatively quiet during the summer months. The number of users showed a marked increase at the start of the autumn term at the end of September. Numbers fall from this date but pick up slightly with th new term in January 2015.

Numbers at Entrances The Calibration survey suggested that the entrances on the between the River Irwell and the Student Village (ref. B) and the entrance alongside the Maxwell Building of the University (ref. G) were the busiest entrances of the seven entrances into the park (see the map in Appendix C for their locations). Entrance B is the closest to the

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

Aug‐14 Sep‐14 Oct‐14 Nov‐14 Dec‐14 Jan‐15

Number of Visitors by Month

48

nearest housing on the “Spike Island” estate and to the existing student accommodation at Castle Irwell to the north. The large number suggests that the park is used by students and local residents even if only as a short cut. Numbers using this entrance may change significantly when the student village is occupied and the Castle Irwell accommodation closes. Entrance G is on an obvious route between Chapel Street (which links Salford to Manchester and is a major bus route) and most of the University Peel Park Campus. The chart below shows the proportion using each entrance. The results for entrance B are omitted for August to October as the People Counter had not been installed at this location.

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

Aug‐14 Sep‐14 Oct‐14 Nov‐14 Dec‐14 Jan‐15

Other Entrances

Entrance G

Entrance B

49

Visitor Numbers over each day The Chart below shows on average when the park is visited (using the results from entrance G). As might be expected, this peaks around the middle of the day but there are smaller peaks in the morning and evening reflecting the role of the park as a route to and from the University. The slightly different pattern to use in January may be due to the onset of dusk around 3pm. Peaks in the evening in October may be due to the evening Halloween event. The peak in November is less easy to explain. It is interesting to note from the total counts that there is some use of the park after the hours of darkness. This is expected to increase when improvements to lighting are carried out and the student village is occupied.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Midnight‐1am

1am‐2am

2am‐3am

3am‐4am

4am‐5am

5am‐6am

6am‐7am

7am‐8am

8am‐9am

9am‐10am

10am

‐11am

11am

‐Midday

Midday‐1p

m

1pm‐2pm

2p

m‐3pm

3p

m‐4pm

4p

m‐5pm

5p

m‐6pm

6p

m‐7pm

7p

m‐8pm

8p

m‐9pm

9p

m‐10p

m

10pm

‐11p

m

11pm

‐Midnight

August

September

October

November

December

January

50

Appendix D Mock Green Flag Field Assessment 2013

Green Flag Award Score Sheet Scoring line

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

7 8 9 10

Very Poor Poor Fair Good Very Good

Excellent Exceptional

Name of Green Space Peel Park Managing Authority Salford City Council Judge Steve Jones Final Score Field Assessment (Minimum pass 42) 33 Would a green flag have been awarded in a live assessment No Field Assessment Criteria Score Evaluation

A welcoming Place? 1. Welcoming 4 Poor

2. Good and Safe Access 3 Poor

3. Signage

2 Poor

4. Equal Access for All 3 Poor

Healthy, Safe and Secure? 5. Safe Equipment and facilities 4 Poor

6. Personal Security in Park 4 Poor

7. Dog Fouling 5 Fair

8. Appropriate provision of Facilities 2 poor

9. Quality of Facilities 5 Fair

Clean and Well maintained? 10. Litter & Waste Management 4 Poor

11. Grounds Maintenance and Horticulture

3 Poor

12. Building and Infrastructure 4 Poor

51

maintenance

13. Equipment Maintenance N/A

Sustainability? 14 Environmental Sustainability N/A

15.Pesticide Use 5 Fair

16. Peat Use 10 Exceptional

17 Waste Minimisation 4 Poor

18 Arboriculture and Woodland Management b

4 Poor

Conservation and Heritage 19 Conservation of Natural Features, wild fauna and flora

4 Poor

20 Conservation of landscape features 4 Poor

21. Conservation of Buildings and Structures

4 Poor

Community Involvement 22. Community Involvement in Management and Development

7 Good

23 Appropriate Provision for Community 3 Poor

Marketing 24 Marketing and Promotion 5 Fair

25 Provision of Appropriate Information 4 Poor

26 Provision of Appropriate educational information

4 Poor

Management 27. Implementation of Management Plan 0 Very Poor

Total 100

Average (Total Divided by 21) 5

Out of 70 (Average times 7) 33

52

Appendix E Fixed Point Photographs Map Ref

Location. Orientation View

1 Road Entrance outside Maxwell Building

East Riverside Entrance to Park

2 Edge of pavement opposite SE corner of Peel Building

NE Peel Entrance to park and frontage of museum

3 South edge of slope Newton Plaza

N Peel Park Entrance through Newton Plaza

4 Top of stairs behind Museum

N Floral Beds

5 Landing W Landing and proposed DDA route 6 Landing SE Proposed Park Keepers Office 7 Eastern side of Floral beds W Across Beds 8 Path to south of floral bed S Across Beds and steps to

Museum 9 Top of Fabric of Nature

earthwork - Fabric of Nature mosaic

10 Top of Fabric of Nature earthwork

SE Play Area

11 Perimeter path Crescent Meadows

W Riverside embankment

12 Path to slope NE Site of proposed performance area

13 Path between Irwell Bridge and University steps

W University Steps

14 Path to Wallness Lane E Site of proposed seating area 15 Path between Irwell Bridge

and University steps E Bridge to Irwell Bridge

16 Path to Wallness Lane N Wallness Lane entrance, Broadwalk and student village

17 Path to Wallness Lane SE View of park from Wallness Lane 18 Riverside Path at Student

Village SW View of park from Riverside path

entrance 19 Riverside Path at Student

Village NW View of Student Village

53

Plan Two Fixed point photography locations and orientation of photographs

Baseline Fixed P

NovembNumber

1

2

3

4

Point Pho

ber 2014rs indica

tographs

4 ate locati

54

ions in P

5

6

7

8

Plan X

9

10

11

12

55

13

14

15

16

Fixed pand atadditio

17

19

point photot the end nal locatio

ography suof the prons created

urveys shooject as a d due to ad

56

18

PhotPhot

ould be taminimum

djoining dev

tographstography

ken once using the

velopment

by St. Py Club

physical we locationst).

Phillips

work is com on Plan

mpleted 2 (plus

57

Appendix G Visitor/Resident Survey Sample Questions These questions and the suggested answers were used in the 2013 survey and should be repeated in 2020 to allow comparison of surveys throughout the life of the project and to match HLF monitoring requirements. Questions relevant to visitors could also be used in visitor surveys carried out by volunteers. Surveys can also be used as an opportunity to promote the park, its activities, volunteering and membership of the Friends group. Do you know where Peel Park is Yes/No Where do you live: (Postcode) How often do you visit Peel Park?

• Almost every day • Once/twice a week • Once a month • Once every six months • Once a year • Never

How often do you visit David Lewis Playing Fields44? • Almost every day • Once/twice a week • Once a month • Once every six months • Once a year • Never

How often do you visit Crescent Meadows?45 • Almost every day • Once/twice a week • Once a month • Once every six months • Once a year • Never

What do you do when you visit the park? • Observe the wildlife • Socialise with friends • Exercise • Events/entertainment • Take children to playground • Play sports and games • Walk the dog

44 Open space to the north of Peel Park 45 Open space on the opposite bank of the River IIrwell

58

• Just passing through • Other (Specify)

How long do you normally stay? • Less than 30 minutes • 30 minutes • 1 hour • 1-2 hours • 2-4 hours • More than 4 hours

How do you normally travel to the park? • On foot • Bicycle • Motorbike • Car • Bus

Which entrance do you use? (Open answer) What do you like most about this park? (Open answer) How could be make the park better? (Open answer) Do you think it is in good condition? Yes/No If no why? (open answer ) In general how safe do you feel in the park?

• Very Safe • Safe • Fairly Safe • Not very safe • Not safe at all

Do you carry out any volunteering in the park? Yes/No How satisfied are you with the park?

• Very Satisfied • Reasonably Satisfied • Nether satisfied or dissatisfied • Not satisfied

What do you know about the history of the park? (open answer) Do you think the park has a positive impact on local people? Yes/No/Don’t know

59

Demographic Questions These should be included in questionnaire and interviews surveys including surveys at events and information collected from volunteers (when starting volunteering activities) Interviewees should be told the reason why the information is collected e.g.

“Salford City Council is committed to equality of opportunity and fairness in the way that we deliver services. We believe that all people have the right to be treated with dignity and respect when coming into contact with the Council We would like you to complete and return the questionnaire below which you will see contains questions relating to your cultural background as well as sex, age and disability. These questions are necessary to ensure we provide a comprehensive service to all members of our community. The information will be treated confidentially and will only be used to identify groups of people not at present using our services and for monitoring”.

Gender Female/Male Do you consider yourself disabled Yes/No Age

• Under 25 • 25-35 • 36-45 • 46-55 • 56-65 • 65-75 • Over 75

Ethnic Origin NB This is not about nationality place of birth or citizenship. They are about broad ethnic group UK citizens can belong to any of the groups indicated. White British/Irish/Other Mixed White and Black Caribbean/White and Black African/White and Asian Other Black Caribbean/African/Other Asian Indian/Pakistani/Bangladeshi/Chinese/Other Arab Other Ethnic Group

60

Appendix H Summary of Results of Visitors and Residents Survey 2013 Visits to the Park How often do you visit the park in the last year?

Daily Weekly Monthly Once

every six months

Annually

Never

67 103 92 60 55 138

13% 20% 18% 12% 11% 27%

Source: 2013 survey of residents and visitors.

Reasons for visiting the park

Reason % Peaceful/Out of Town Feel 25 Greenery/Open Space/Scenery/Gardens 28 Play Equipment 8 Wildlife 7 Convenient 6 River Irwell 5 Activities 4 Good for kids 4 History/memories 7 Everything 2 Nothing 4

051015202530

Frequency of Visits

Frequency of Visits

61

Reasons for not visiting the park

Reason % Personal; No time, don’t visit parks , use other parks, too far 17 Don’t know where Peel Park is, new to area, poor access to the park 11 Reputation of the park; scary, unsafe, tales of drinking and drugs 6 No supervision/ranger 1 Nothing to do there 5 Not Family friendly 4 Condition of the park 51

Reasons for Visiting Peaceful

Greenery

Play Equipment

Wildlife

Convenient

River Irwell

Activities

Good for kids

History

Everything

Nothing

Reasons for not visiting Peel Park Personal

Access

Reputation

Lack of supervisionNothing to do

Not Family Friendly

62

Demography of Visitors Gender

Gender of wider area for comparison

% Visitors to the Park Local Area46 Salford Greater Manchester47

Male 42 53.3 49.9 49.4

Female 58 46.7 50.1 50.6

Source: 2013 survey of residents and visitors. ONS 2011 Census

Disability

% Disabled of wider area for comparison

% Visitors to the Park Local Area Salford Greater ManchesterDisabled48 8% 11.0 8.3 9.91

46 Area comprising super output area - lower layer within 1200m of park; Salford 016A, Salford 016B, Salford 016C, Salford 017B, Salford 017F, Salford 022D, Salford 022F, Salford 022G, Salford 022H Salford 022K ,Salford 022J, Salford 023A, Salford 023C, Salford 024A, Salford 024B, Salford 024C Salford 024D 47 Comprises principle members of Association of Greater Manchester Authorities; Bolton, Bury, Manchester, Oldham, Rochdale, Salford, Stockport, Tameside, Trafford, Wigan 48 Source: 2013 survey of residents and visitors (based on the question “Do you consider yourself disabled”). Results for other areas from ONS 2011 (“Disability: Day-to-day activities limited a lot”).

0 20 40 60 80

Visitors to the Park

Local Area

Salford

Greater Manchester

Female

Male

0 2 4 6 8 10 12


Local Area

Salford

Greater Manchester

Disabled

63

Age

Age of wider area for comparison

%

Visitors to the Park Local

Area Salford (Met.

District)

Greater Manchester

Under

25 26

38 33 34 26-35 20 23 18 14 36-45 20 12 14 14 46-55 14 11 12 13

56 plus 18 17 23 24 Source: ONS 2011 Census

Ethnicity

Ethnicity of wider area for

comparison


%

Local Area

%

Salford (Met District)

%

Greater Manchester

% White: British 89 80 84 80 Other White 3 10 6 4 Mixed 2 3 2 2 Asian/Asian British 1 6 4 10 Black/African/Caribbean/Black British 2 7 3 3

Other ethnic group 2 2 1 1 Source: ONS 2011 Census

0 10 20 30 40

Under 25

26‐35

36‐55

46‐55

56 plus

Greater Manchester

Salford

Local Area

Visitors

64

Home Postcode of Visitors

Two Figure Postcode of visitors

%

M7 54 M6 24 M5 4 M3 9 Other Manchester 7 Other 3

Peel Park is bordered by the M6 postcode area to the north, M5 to the south. Postcode areas M7 and M3 are also close.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

White British

Other white

Mixed

Asian

Black

Other

Greater Manchester

Salford

Local Area

Visitors

% from Postcodes

M7

M6

M5

65

Appendix I Summary of result of Student Survey November 2014

Situated as it is, students are likely to be major users of Peel Park. This survey was conducted in November 2011 by interviewing students in the Peel Park Campus (nearest the park). This used the same survey questions as the residents and visitor survey. 84% of those interviewed knew where the park was.

How often do you visit the Park?

Almost every day 0%Once / twice a week 10%Once a month 8%Once every six months 2%Once a year 24%Never 57%

Reasons for not visiting the park

Heard it is unsafe 24%No need to 17%Too busy 3%Would visit if it was nicer 3%Weather - too cold 3%Just visiting 3%Poor access 3%Not heard of it 14%New to the area 14%Students living at home 14%

What do you do when you visit the park?

Observe wildlife 10%Socialise with friends 0%Exercise 17%Events / entertainment 0%Visit the playground 14%Play sports and games 5%Walk the dog 0%Just passing through 31%Study 17%Other (specify) 7%

66

How long do you normally stay?

Less than 30 minutes 36%30 minutes 9%1 hour 27%1 - 2 hours 18%2 - 4 hours 9%More than 4 hours 0%

What do you like most about the park?

Green open space 43%Wildlife / nature 10%Quiet / calm 14%Place to relax 5%Swings / play equipment 10%Short cut / off road route 19%

67

Appendix J Summary of results of Surveys at Events

1. Customer Satisfaction Surveys at Events 2013

Number Surveyed

Date Event Number Surveyed

7th August 2013 Play Day 5 30th October 2013 Spooky Spectacle 15 19th December 2013 Winter Wonderland 7

Previous Visits to the Park

Frequency No. %

Never 10 41.6 Occasional 9 37.5 Regular 5 20.8

How did you find out about the event?

Method Number %

Word of Mouth 13 52 Poster/Flyer 10 40 Internet 2 8

Age Bracket

Age Group No %

No Response 2 3.9 Under 5 9 17.6

6-12 4 7.8 13-18 2 3.9 19-30 12 23.5 31-59 12 23.5 60+ 0 0

68

Home Address of Visitor

Postcode Area Number %

M3 1 4 M5 3 12.5 M6 7 29.1 M7 9 37.5

Elsewhere 3 12.5

Means of Travel

Method No. %

Walk 10 37 Cycle 2 7.4 Public Transport 5 18.5 Car 12 44

2. Customer Satisfaction Surveys at events 201449

Previous Visits to the Park

Frequency No. %

Never 12 66 Daily 1 5 Once a week 1 5 Monthly 2 11 Every six months 2 11

How did you find out about the event?

Method Number %

Word of Mouth 8 57 Social Media 4 28.5 Internet 2 14

49 Not all of those surveyed answered all questions

69

Age Bracket

Age Group No %

Under 25 6 33 25-35 8 44 36-45 3 16 46-55 1 5 55+ 0 0

Home Address of Visitor

Postcode Area Number %

M3 4 20 M5 0 0 M6 7 35 M7 8 40

Elsewhere 1 5

Means of Travel

Method No. %

Walk 10 37 Cycle 2 7.4 Public Transport 5 18.5 Car 12 44

Stage 2 HLF submission - February 2015Peel Park

PP-13-06497

PP SD no 8 Evaluation plan

Documents

Transcript of PP SD no 8 Evaluation plan