§ Lord Kennetasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the terms of reference given by the Royal Parks Agency to consultants concerning traffic, pedestrians, cycling and parking within Hyde Park, St. James's Park, Green Park and Regents Park were agreed with Westminster City Council in advance of being commissioned, and if not why not, given the implications of the road closures recommended by the consultants for traffic throughout the Westminster area; and what has been the cost to the taxpayer of these studies;
Whether the Royal Parks Agency has let contracts for the supply, installation and enforcement of pay and display parking in Hyde Park before knowing how many parking places in that park are required by bona fide park users;
On what grounds the provision of underground coach parking facilities at, or adjacent to, the existing Park Lane car park was omitted from the Royal Parks Agency's brief to their consultants, given that such provision had been recommended by the Royal Parks Review Group, and whether this omission was agreed with Westminster City Council; and
Whether the consultants briefed by the Royal Parks Agency are required to take into account the ceremonial use of the Mall to and from Buckingham Palace.
§ Baroness TrumpingtonResponsibility 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 Chief Executive of the Royal Parks Agency, Mr. David Welch, dated 2 March 1994
I have been asked by Baroness Trumpington to reply to your Parliamentary Questions about the survey carried out by consultants on behalf of the agency into different aspects of traffic in the Royal Parks.
We are considering the tenders to operate the pay and display scheme and will be letting the contract soon. However, I can assure you that the consultants have carried out a study into parking behaviour in the Royal Parks. This showed that between a quarter and a third of all parking in Hyde Park and Regents Park was for less than one-and-a-half hours, while between 40% and 65% parking in these parks was long stay parking.
The study did not directly address the destination of motorists who had parked in the parks, and it would be very difficult to do so. However, as the long stay parking 101WA tended to be concentrated close to the commercial areas adjoining each park, it can be assumed that the reason for parking in these cases was not to visit the park.
We did not consult Westminster before drawing up the terms of the traffic study because it was only intended to provide the Agency with specialist advice on possible ways to deal with some of the traffic problems in the parks that the Jenkins Review Group had identified and flesh out some of their suggestions. However, we wrote to all the local authorities adjoining the parks, and to the Friends of the Parks, before the study began to ensure they had the opportunity to put their views to the consultants; and we have since sent copies of the consultants' report to those local authorities and friends for their information. I can assure you that before taking any decisions to implement proposals from the report we will consult all interested parties.
102WAI can confirm that the consultants were aware of the ceremonial uses of the Mall, and if we were to consider any proposals in that area we should of course bear the status of the Mall as a national ceremonial route very much in mind.
The study cost £ 68,000, including the cost of printing sufficient copies of the report to send to the Friends of the Royal Parks and the local authorities concerned.
The Jenkins Review recommended a separate study to consider changes to the underground car park off Park Lane to accommodate coaches. This would involve altering the structure of the existing car park. Although it is beneath Hyde Park, the car park is run by National Car Parks, and the roads which feed it are the responsibility of Westminster City Council, and so it is not within our aegis.