Serpentine Gallery (Hansard, 25 July 1996)

§ Lord Inglewood

Responsibility for the subject of these questions has been delegated to the Royal Parks Agency under its Chief Executive, Mr. David Welch. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

Letter to Lord Kennet from the Head of Estate Management, the Royal Parks Agency, Mr. R. A. Jones, dated 25th July 1996.

In the absence of David Welch, who is currently on holiday, I have been asked by Lord Inglewood to reply to your four parliamentary Questions about the Serpentine Gallery. Specifically whether the Gallery has all the appropriate permissions to expand its facilities to include a bookshop and an education centre and for use as a wedding reception venue, and whether these new uses are compatible with the Jenkins criteria for activities in Kensington Gardens; why the usual notifications and consultations with local amenity societies were not carried out regarding the proposed developments at the gallery; how many parties have been held at the Serpentine Gallery, how many are planned, who pays for the extra policing required and whether the omission to grass over the now-redundant car park and the installation of outside lighting are connected with these new uses for the gallery; and whether the Department of National Heritage is contributing to the refurbishing of the Serpentine Gallery even though the Gallery is in receipt of £3 million lottery money.

I understand that you wrote to Lord Inglewood in respect of the Serpentine Gallery on 1 July 1996, and that many of your questions were also included in that letter. I believe he replied on 22 July and my answers confirm the advice which you will have received from him, as well as providing the additional information which you have requested.

You ask whether the gallery has permission to expand its facilities to include a bookshop and education centre. I can advise in general that the gallery has secured both planning consent and building regulation approval for all the works which are currently planned. The gallery does have an existing small bookshop, and it is intended to enlarge this, to allow additional room for customers to browse and to prevent damage to stock caused by the 158WA present crowded conditions. The sale of art-related books, catalogues, prints, special editions, postcard reproductions and promotional material is allowed under the terms of the current licence and there is no intention to move beyond the scope of this.

The gallery, as an educational charity, organises a wide range of activities with local schools, community groups and further education institutes, and the education centre has been recreated by rearranging the internal space to allow this to continue without interfering with the enjoyment of visitors. The level of educational activity will not increase.

Both the bookshop and the education centre are ancillary to the main purpose of the gallery and their permitted opening hours will be the same as for the gallery itself.

You also ask whether the gallery has permission for use as a wedding reception venue. I can confirm that it does not.

In its review of Hyde Park and Kensington Gardens, published in February 1992, the Royal Parks Review Group, chaired by Dame Jennifer Jenkins, commented that "pictures in the park … are quite compatible with its overall character, so long as the needs of the gallery do not create pressures for unsuitable change in the immediate landscape". We agree entirely and took this view into account in assessing whether the proposed uses should be allowed.

You question why local amenity societies were not consulted regarding the proposed developments at the gallery. I understand that the vice chairman of the gallery's Board of Trustees, Oliver Prenn, and the administrator, Rebecca King Lassman, had a series of meetings in 1993 with the then chairman of the Friends of Hyde Park and Kensington Gardens, Philip Joseph, and subsequently presented the plans to a committee meeting of the Friends. The only changes since then have been to propose housing the heating plant and workshop in a basement and not to proceed with plans for a café.

With regard to your question about the number of parties held at the gallery, the only events approved by the Royal Parks Agency are those associated with the private viewings/sponsorship which precede each exhibition. Any additional events outside normal gallery opening hours must have the agency's prior consent. The number of such events differs slightly from year to year, but I can advise that during the last 12 months there have been 29 evening events, with a further six planned over the next 12 months. The majority of these events were private views or sponsors' evenings, which ended before 8.30 pm.

Only events attended by a member of the Royal Family incur additional policing costs. These costs are met from the Royal Parks Agency budget and are not separately identified. Other events do not require the presence of the RPC, although officers do ensure that guests leave the park when it closes at midnight. As this is part of an officer's normal duties, these costs are not separately identified.

159WA

I can confirm that any changes made to the car park situated opposite the gallery are unrelated to the gallery's functions. The recently installed external lighting to the front of the gallery was installed to enhance the safety of those leaving the events described above, as those held during winter months invariably finish in darkness. The lighting was introduced to address a long-standing problem.

Finally, with regard to your question as to whether the Department of National Heritage is contributing to the costs of refurbishing of the gallery, I can advise that the Royal Parks Agency is contractually bound to contribute towards the cost of accrued maintenance and that this will be honoured.