Royal Parks (Hansard, 17 February 1994)

§ Mr. Sproat

The royal parks are one of London's finest assets and give pleasure to millions. The Government are committed to maintaining and improving these important open spaces so that they attain the highest standards of excellence.

I have now considered the second report on the role and management of the royal parks from an independent review group, chaired by Dame Jennifer Jenkins. The group's first report considered Hyde park and Kensington gardens; this time its attention was focused on the four remaining parks in central London; St. James's park, Green park, Regent's park and Primrose hill. The group once again examined a wide range of issues and consulted many individuals and organisations. The conclusions of its report were discussed at a one-day conference.

918W

The group's recommendations highlight the opportunities we now have to enhance the quality of the parks, and to provide for changing demands and pressures, but in doing so we must not lose sight of the fundamental purpose of the parks as places where hundreds of people can enjoy themselves in the open air. We are looking positively at the proposals in the group's report, although it is clear that some of them would involve significant changes and significant expenditure: for example, to landscape, traffic and parking. In this answer I shall describe the action we have already taken, and my proposals for taking matters forward. There will have to be detailed consultations with interested parties, including the royal household, Westminster city council, and the Crown Estate Commission, before some proposals can be implemented; some will require further study to determine whether practical solutions are possible; and the availability of financial resources will play a major part in determining the extent and timing and implementation of others.

A central theme of the Jenkins group was that the pedestrian should have priority within the parks and that the impact of traffic on the atmosphere of the parks, particularly St. James's and Green parks, should be significantly reduced.

The group highlighted the area in front of Buckingham palace—which, it should be explained, is part of St. James's park—as a prime example of the conflict between pedestrians and traffic. It recommended the creation of a pedestrian place between the palace and the Queen Victoria memorial. I am pleased to say that during the course of the last year consultants have looked at traffic and pedestrian access throughout the royal parks, and have already produced proposals for achieving this recommendation. Further detailed studies have been commissioned and when these are completed consultation will take place with all concerned.

A programme of other traffic management measures is also being developed, including additional pedestrian crossings and traffic calming methods.

On a related theme, the Jenkins group recommended that car parking should be banned from Horse Guards parade, returning the area to uncluttered open space, thus restoring one of the important vistas of St. James's park. Such a proposal will obviously require consultation with several Government Departments and other bodies. Alternative solutions to providing the necessary car parking, and the other consequential problems, would have to be found. The Royal Parks Agency is examining ways in which these problems might be resolved.

For Regent's park, the Jenkins group's main theme was the need to view the park, villas and surrounding terraces as "an integral piece of urban design", reflecting its original conception. Many bodies now have management responsibilities within the area, and I accept the group's recommendation that there should ideally be a co-ordinated management strategy for the area as a whole. In this respect the important planning function of local authorities should not be overlooked. In the first stages I propose to consult colleagues in the Department of the Environment to see how the proposal can be taken forward. I also agree that a consultative mechanism between the park management and local residents and amenity groups, who value and take an interest in the park, should be developed.

The group has put forward several proposals to improve the image of the parks to the visitor, including the 919W introduction of suitably sited display boards, explaining features such as the heritage and wildlife of the parks, and leaflets for self-guided trails. The general signing and maps on the parks also need improvement. I welcome these ideas, together with the suggestion for increasing the parks' role in more formal education by the provision of information centres and facilities for schools. The Royal Parks Agency's design consultant has in fact already designed new map boards, and these will be installed shortly. The first leaflets have already been produced.

The group has recognised the role of royal parks in the image of London for visitors from this country and abroad, and this is reflected in its proposal for a circular walk linking all six central parks—the royal parks promenade. A leaflet showing the route and noting the important features along the way will be produced. I welcome this proposal, as does Westminster city council, which undoubtedly will have an important role to play in taking it forward. Parts of the route, such as the link through Park square and Crescent gardens, and that through Paddington, will need to be considered carefully, and several organisations will need to be consulted, if the proposal is to come to fruition.

The full cost of implementing the recommendations is not yet known as further studies are required, and we will have to consider the position of the royal parks along with other demands on the Department of National Heritage budget. The specific recommendations made in the report, to increase funding to the parks through the retention of all additional income, a special contribution from Government, to cover the cost of policing and staging national celebrations, and a contribution from the Crown Estate, will require further detailed research and discussion within the Government. Until these discussions are complete I cannot say whether the proposals in the report can, or will be, met.

I am pleased to say that considerable progress has been made towards meeting the recommendations in the group's first report on Hyde park and Kensington gardens. For example, the group felt that the Speakers' corner and Marble arch area had deteriorated, and suggested a competition for ideas to improve the area. The competition has been organised and was announced in January. in July a works management contractor was appointed and this contractor has completed a survey of all buildings and structures and drawn up a planned maintenance programme. This is the first step in reversing the deterioration in the fabric of the parks highlighted by the group. Traffic consultants have reported on traffic management within the parks and extensive consultation with local authorities and other interested parties is now taking place. The appointment of landscape architects, the establishment of the royal parks as an executive agency, and the policing of Hyde park by the Royal Parks constabulary, have been successfully completed.

The comprehensive coverage given to every aspect of the parks by the Jenkins group and the general support and constructive comment that its reports have generated have persuaded me that a review of the remaining royal parks should be carried out. I have therefore invited Dame Jennifer Jenkins to chair a group to review Greenwich, Bushey and Richmond parks. The timetable for this review is longer than that for the previous reviews; starting in March, the group's report is expected in the first half of 1995. This will allow the Royal Parks Agency time to assimilate and take action of the proposals in the first two reports.

920W

I am most grateful for the contribution and time Dame Jennifer, and her group, have already given, and look forward to the next report.