www.islington.gov.uk
Milner Square Improvements
Consultation Report, November 2015
Report Compiled by
Greenspace Projects team
Date
20/11/2015
Introduction
Public consultation was carried out between 28th September and 19th October 2015 to gauge
residents’ opinions on improving Milner Square Gardens, N1. This information was required to
find out what improvements residents would like to see, how they felt about existing play
provision and the park and whether they wanted to keep the existing ball court. Additionally,
questions asked how residents felt about their local greenspace and if they wanted to keep a
small disused brick building occupying the north-east side of the square.
Funding for this project will come from money contributed by housing developers under a
Section 106 agreement, a decision that was taken by the ward partnership.
This is the first round of consultation undertaken for this project and the results will be used to
inform a design brief, integrating the community’s response into the initial discussion for how the
park will be improved. This report will be made publically available on the council’s webpages,
and time allowed for feedback. Once feedback has been received, a design brief will be agreed
with a design team and outline proposals compiled. Further consultation will then take place on
this outline design before it is finalised.
Methodology

The Council undertook a letter drop to 869 properties in the Milner Square area (see
Appendix I) inviting them to participate in an online survey between the 28 th September
and 19th October 2015.

This was followed by a consultation event in Milner Square on the 24th October 2015
between 10am and 2pm, where residents were invited to discuss proposals with council
officers. Attendees were encouraged to use Post-it notes to write down what they liked
about the space, what they didn’t like and what improvements they would like to see.
Outline sketches were provided alongside a breakdown of the various constraints of the
site so that residents could gain a sense of what was possible and their comments were
then analysed and key themes identified.

An additional 11 surveys were carried out at the consultation event and these results
were added to those obtained via the online survey. It is important to note that
respondents in the park itself viewed some questions as multiple choice and answered
them accordingly, whereas respondents online were not given the option to provide more
than one answer. In those instances where respondents have provided multiple answers,
each answer provided has been counted.
Summary of results:
Response rate
This survey had a positive response rate with 55 residents logging on and participating in the
online survey, which equated to 6%. Approximately 60 residents then attended the consultation
event in the park itself, with an additional 12 residents filling out a survey on-site and increasing
the response rate to 7.6%. The findings of the survey were as follows:
Use
The survey suggested that Milner Square is not as well used as it could be. Play equipment is
the most popular facility, with 34% stating that this is the main reason for their visit. However,
42% of surveyed residents only enter the square as a means of getting from one side of the
square to the other, not using the park or facilities.
With that in mind then, it is hardly surprising that the residents want to see the square improved
with 79% confirming their support for the project compared with 21% of residents who voted
against any improvements. There was not a clear shared vision expressed by residents, but
there were a number of recurring themes which are outlined below:
Play
The survey suggested that residents feel Milner Square is too ‘hard’ and would benefit from a
more ‘natural’ design that incorporates soft landscaping, more of a garden feel and provides a
calm setting that allows users to sit and relax. Whilst some residents state that they do not want
play facilities in the square, the majority of those polled do want to keep the play area, but they
do not want ‘off-the-shelf’ play equipment.
Ballcourt
Conversations with residents and park users suggest that the ballcourt is underused.
Furthermore, of those surveyed, 47% of residents state that they do not think the square needs
a ballcourt compared with 29% of residents who think it does. During the consultation event in
the square many residents who are supportive of the ballcourt explained that they would like to
see it improved by adding goals and hoops for games of football and basketball respectively
and by ‘levelling the surface’ as the ballcourt’s surface currently sits at a slightly lower level to
the rest of the square.
Old park-keeper’s hut/brick building
The majority of residents (59%) want to see the brick building on the north-east side of the
square restored and put to good use. 27% of residents were in favour of demolition compared
with 19% who stated that they were indifferent. During the consultation event in the square all
residents stated that they would like to see the hut restored and used as a café, serving light
refreshments. People were keen to get involved in this as another project, suggesting that it
could be run by the community and any money put back into the square.
Planting and seating
Another common theme to emerge from consultation was the need for the square to offer older
park users a space to sit and relax. Many residents stated that they wanted to see the planting
of shrubs and bushes as much as they wanted better play facilities and that they would like
Milner Square to have more of a community garden feel than it has presently.
Trees
Milner Square is home to a large number of trees and this has both advantageous and
disadvantageous effects on the area. Ultimately, the trees are well loved and residents do not
wish to see any of them removed. When asked if they had any comments about the tree
population on the square 37% were vehement in their response and appealed for the trees to
be left outside of the scope of these works. Another 37% were indifferent, whilst 26% of
residents suggested that they viewed the trees as problematic as they block light, reduce sightlines and visibility of the park and pose maintenance issues when shedding leaves.
Conclusions/summary
Based on the results of the initial consultation, the improvements to Milner Square should focus
on the following areas. Each of these will be developed with the design team and where
relevant, with officers from other departments, such as planning, arboriculture or highways.
 Play Facilities
 The current play provision is unsatisfactory and is in need of improvement.
 There is a clear preference toward wooden, bespoke equipment using natural colours.
Natural play should be encouraged where possible, along with the use of timber and
more natural looking materials but it should be noted that there were will be constraints
here. We will need to work closely with the designer in balancing play value with the
need to design a space that is maintainable and provides value for money. There was
particular enthusiasm for the swings. Many residents were upset when a larger swing-set
was replaced by a smaller unit last year and it is therefore important that any design
includes swings.
 We should also explore increasing the size of the current play area as there may well be
scope to do this if the ball court were to be removed (see below).
 Ballcourt
 The ballcourt occupying the southern side of Milner Square should be considered for
removal within the designer’s brief, given that the majority of residents consider it a poor
use of space. Alternative uses could be more beneficial to the space and encourage
wider use of the park.
 However, we should also explore alternative ball playing areas. It may be possible to
provide a ballcourt but on a smaller scale or provide a space for ball games away from a
traditional ballcourt.
 Ultimately, we need to explore how the space could best be used. Those surveyed have
shown particular interest in having a garden in Milner Square with seating so that the
space can be enjoyed.
 There is also an interest in developing an area that allows play on bikes, skates and
scooters, so this is another option that can be explored.
 Old park keeper’s hut/brick building
 Proposals to renovate or remove the building should be put to the architect within their
brief, and outline options discussed. It is possible that a community enterprise could be
developed, as it has been suggested but this would need to be likely to succeed to justify
expenditure and in any case, developing this particular plan is outside the scope of this
project. Within this improvement project, the building could be worked into the
playground design – be a recreational space, a ‘folly’ i.e. pretty but not functional, which
will be considered by the council and design team.
 Soft landscaping works and seating
 The new design should see more of an emphasis on soft landscaping and areas for
users to sit and relax with adequate, comfortable seating located in areas of sunlight.
 Residents also want the square to stimulate children’s play, and to encourage them to
‘interact with nature and be inquisitive’. One common recommendation was that we
should install signage stating tree species and plant and flower types.
 Several visitors to the consultation event also expressed an interest in taking a hands-on
approach with regards to cultivating a garden in Milner Square so there is scope for a
community garden group.
 Raised beds would be a welcome addition to the square and may prove easier to
maintain given the conditions.
 Trees
 All existing trees should be retained and any new design for the square should ensure
that they are well incorporated.
 Other considerations
 The design needs to include new pathways to the play area as users are currently
forced to walk across the grass to access play facilities. This is difficult for those with
pushchairs and wheelchairs, is inconvenient in bad weather and places considerable
strain on the grass.
Appendix I
Milner Square consultation Map