PUBLIC CONSULTATION REPORT – PROPOSED PLAYZONE AT MANOR PARK
Consultation run by Friends of Manor Park CIC
14–24 May — 120 Responses (KT3/KT4 focus)

Friends of Manor Park pre-amble

Friends of Manor Park CIC undertook this rapid public consultation in response to the accelerated timetable that Kingston Council communicated for moving the PlayZone/MUGA proposal into the formal planning process. Until April 2026, neither the Friends group—elected to represent the interests of the Manor Park community—nor the wider public local to Manor Park (KT3 and KT4) had been given any meaningful opportunity to shape or comment on a significant investment that the Council had been developing for many months.

Our aim in running this consultation was therefore straightforward: to ensure that the community has a voice, that this voice is acted upon, and that any investment in Manor Park is designed and delivered in a way that genuinely benefits local people, and respects the integrity of the park.

The results of the survey were mixed, with strong views expressed across the spectrum.

However, several clear themes and requests emerged.

Executive Summary — What the Community Said

Across 120 responses, the consultation reveals deeply polarised views, but with a clear overall trend:

Headline Findings

  • Strong majority were unaware of the proposal before April 2026.
    E.g., “No” appears repeatedly in response to awareness before April 2026.
  • Overwhelming support for publishing the Council’s 2024 consultation results.
    Many respondents explicitly state: “The council should share the full consultation results.”
  • General sentiment toward the PlayZone is more negative than positive.
    Roughly 60–65% of respondents express negative or very negative views.
  • Location is the single biggest concern.
    Many describe it as “not appropriate at all”, “cuts the park in half”, “too close to the playground/bowls club”.
  • Cost and access are major barriers.
    A steep drop‑off occurs when confronted with paying to use the MUGA.
  • Strong concern about loss of green space, wildlife impact, and ASB.
  • Local children’s free access is seen as extremely important by a large majority.
  • Women, disabled respondents, and low‑income households show even stronger concern about affordability and access.
  • Awareness, Transparency & Trust

2.1 Awareness Before April 2026

A very large majority answered “No” to being aware of the proposal.

2.2 Desire for Transparency

A dominant theme: the Council must publish the 2024 consultation results.

Quotes include:

  • “There should be no mystery or surprises to be presented later.”
  • “The initial consultation could not have been widely publicised. It feels like the council have something to hide.”
  • “What happens in places like Manor Park should be decided, democratically, by the local residents who use the park. What the council is doing is not democracy. It is the council deciding it knows what’s best for local residents, and going ahead with it anyway, and only doing lip-service consultations. At the very least, the council should be making these decisions in partnership with local residents, or even handing over power to residents to make these decisions. A much more ‘bottom-up’ approach is needed.”

This is one of the strongest consensus points in the entire dataset.

Overall Sentiment Toward the PlayZone Proposal

3.1 General Feeling

Responses range from “very positive” to “very negative”, but the modal response is negative.

Negative themes include:

  • “Too expensive for kids.”
  • “Loss of open green space.”
  • “Impact on wildlife.”
  • “Not needed — already football pitches.”
  • “Privatisation of public space.”

Positive themes

include:

  • “Great for kids and teens.”
  • “All‑weather surface is needed.”
  • “Encourages fitness and community use.”

3.2 Location Suitability

This is the most divisive question, but with a clear tilt toward unsuitable.

Common objections:

  • “Not suitable at all.”
  • “Cuts the park in half.”
  • “Too close to the playground.”
  • “Impacts bowls, cricket, tennis.”

Even some supporters of the PlayZone oppose the location.

Overall 59% felt the location unsuitable vs 30% thought it appropriate.

Cost, Access & Usage

4.1 Maximum Willingness to Pay

Responses cluster around:

  • £0–£10 for many
  • £20 is a psychological ceiling
  • £30–£40 only acceptable if split across a team
  • £60+ seen as unrealistic

4.2 Drop‑off at £20/hour

When asked about using the PlayZone if it cost over £20/hour, responses shift dramatically toward:

  • “Unlikely”
  • “Very unlikely”
  • “Not at all”

Example:
“Not at all… Too expensive for kids… Wouldn’t use it… Why put it in if it’s unaffordable?”

This is one of the clearest behavioural signals in the dataset.

4.3 Ease of Access (SmartAccess Keypad)

Most respondents say “Very easy” — but this masks a deeper issue:

Those who find it “easy” are not the groups the Council says it wants to prioritise.

Disabled respondents, low‑income households, and older residents express:

  • concerns about digital exclusion
  • concerns about keypad reliability
  • concerns about children being locked out

Priority Groups: Women, Disabled People, Low‑Income Families

5.1 Women

Women respondents show:

  • higher concern about safety
  • higher concern about ASB
  • stronger emphasis on lighting, CCTV, supervision
  • interest in netball and women‑only sessions

Example:
“As a woman I’d want safe access, lighting, cameras.”

5.2 Disabled Respondents

Disabled respondents consistently raise concerns about:

  • accessibility of toilets (the condition being a relevant determinant)
  • parking availability
  • booking system barriers
  • concerns about being priced out

Example:
“Will it be accessible for disabled park users?”
“Very few disabled bays in the car park.”

5.3 Low‑Income Households

Low‑income respondents are the least likely to use the facility.

Themes:

  • “Sport should be free.”
  • “This is a money‑making scheme.”
  • “Kids won’t pay.”

Example:
“Everything is expensive. Sport should be free, not just for those who can afford it.”

5.4 Multi‑Ethnic Communities

Responses show:

  • no clear evidence that the targeted groups were consulted
  • concern about fairness if some groups receive free access and others do not

Free Access for Local Children

This is one of the strongest consensus points.

Across all demographics:

  • “Extremely important” is the dominant answer.

Example:
“Local children should be the main users for free.”
“Kids need free access without clubs.”

Concerns: ASB, Wildlife, Noise, Lighting, Loss of Green Space

7.1 Anti‑Social Behaviour

ASB is the single most frequently cited concern.

Quotes include:

  • “Bound to attract ASB.”
  • “My son was mugged in the park — floodlights will make it easier for groups to gather.”
  • “No supervision — who will manage this?”

7.2 Wildlife Impact

Many respondents mention:

  • bats
  • birds
  • nocturnal species
  • light pollution

Example:
“Lighted area will upset the local wildlife.”
“Impact on bats.”

7.3 Noise

Noise concerns include:

  • shouting
  • swearing
  • balls hitting fencing
  • late‑evening disturbance

7.4 Loss of Green Space

A major theme:

  • “We need to protect our green spaces.”
  • “This will destroy the openness of the park.”

Sports Preferences

Across all respondents:

  • Padel/Pickleball appears most frequently 28%
  • Football is the 2nd requested sport 22%
  • Basketball appears frequently 15.1%
  • Netball is strongly requested by women (12.9% overall group, but 15% of female respondents vs 13% for basketball. Football 15%, 19% for Padel/pickle)

‘Firstly, my daughter is a keen netballer, and as far as I am aware there are zero public facilities for this in the borough. Please note, BASKETBALL AND NETBALL ARE NOT THE SAME SPORT. So for her and other netballers to practice, they either need to pay to use facilities, or invest in their own net. For those without a garden, e.g. in flats, this is not possible.’

Low‑income and disabled respondents show:

  • higher interest in free‑to‑access football
  • lower interest in paid basketball/structured sessions

Usage Frequency

If free or low‑cost:

  • Many say weekly.

If paid:

  • Usage drops to monthly or less often.

If over £20/hour:

  • Usage collapses to “unlikely” or “not at all.”

Key Themes by Demographic

10.1 Women

  • Higher concern about ASB and safety.
  • Strong interest in netball and women‑only sessions.
  • Stronger opposition to location near playground.

10.2 Disabled Respondents

  • Concern about access, toilets, parking.
  • Concern about keypad entry.
  • Concern about affordability.

10.3 Low‑Income Households

  • Strongest opposition to pay‑for‑use model.
  • Strongest support for free access for children.
  • Least likely to use the facility at any price.

Conclusions

Clear Majority Concerns

  • Lack of transparency
  • Location inappropriate
  • Loss of green space
  • Wildlife impact
  • ASB risk
  • Cost barriers
  • Digital exclusion
  • Parking pressure

Clear Majority Priorities

  • Free access for local children
  • Protecting green space
  • Improving existing facilities (paths, drainage, goals)
  • Safety and supervision

Clear Behavioural Signal

Demand collapses above £20/hour.

Clear Equity Issue

The groups the Council claims to prioritise (women, disabled, low‑income, multi‑ethnic communities) are the least likely to benefit under the current model.