Royal Parks Review Group (Hansard, 11 July 1996)

§ Mr. Sproat

The Secretary of State and I have now considered the group's report on Richmond and Bushey parks in detail. As with previous reviews—the first on Hyde park and Kensington gardens, the second on St. James's, Green and Regent's parks and the third on Greenwich park—the review group, chaired by Dame Jennifer Jenkins, has examined a wide range of issues relating to the role and management of the parks, and consulted with a great number of individuals and organisations before arriving at its conclusions. These conclusions were discussed at a one-day conference, of which I was able to attend a part, and were, in the main, well received. The conference delegates supported the thrust of the recommendations, with lively discussion on a number of matters and the views expressed were considered by the group in submitting the report to the Secretary of State.

The group's recommendations focus on the opportunities to provide for changing demands and pressures without losing sight of the parks' prime function of providing a green open space, and I can confirm that I accept them in principle. Indeed, action has already been taken on some matters, although consultation will be required before others are taken forward. Many will be affected by the availability of financial resources.

The group's principal recommendations are intended to reduce the impact of traffic on each park, with a view to improving the safety of pedestrians and wildlife, and restoring the ambience of the parks. One of the group's chief recommendations is that subject to the outcome of traffic studies, Richmond park should be closed to through traffic at busy weekends. I agree that consideration should be given to this recommendation and have asked the Royal Parks agency to consult the London borough of Richmond Upon Thames, the Traffic Director for London and local interest groups, with a view to carrying out the necessary studies within the next year. No decision will be taken until the discussions have been completed and the results of the studies carefully assessed.

Commenting on the injuries caused to deer by traffic crossing the park during the hours of darkness, the group also suggests that Bushey park should be closed to traffic at dusk, rather than midnight. This would bring Bushey park in line with other royal parks, including Richmond park, many of which already close to traffic at dusk. 254W I have asked the agency to discuss this proposal with those most likely to be affected. A decision will be taken in the light of these discussions.

In considering ways in which the impact of traffic on each park might be reduced, the group expressed concern about the size and location of major car parks in the two parks: most notably the Pen Ponds car park in Richmond park and the Diana car park in Bushey park. Whilst I agree that the degree of erosion caused in the Pen Ponds area is threatening the long-term stability of the park, I also accept that for many visitors this area would otherwise be out of reach, and I have asked the Royal Parks agency to consider how the needs of less mobile visitors can be taken into account without further damage to the park's ecology. The agency will also consider whether alternative parking space can be provided elsewhere, but on the perimeter of the park.

The group's proposals for the Diana car park in Bushey park are part of a wider recommendation that the size and location of all car parks should be reassessed, with a view to better integration within the landscape, and the Royal Parks agency plans to discuss options with its landscape consultants as to how this might be achieved.

The group also suggests that car parking charges should be considered. Although car parking charges were introduced in Hyde park and Regent's parks during 1994, this was mainly to deter commuters and shoppers from taking up spaces which should properly be reserved for use by park visitors. The situation in Richmond and Bushey parks, where surveys have shown a far higher percentage of regular and local visitors, is quite different. I have asked the Royal Parks agency to examine the financial viability of this proposal and to consult the local authority and regular park users.

The group also highlights the importance of the listed buildings in each park, and makes specific recommendations for many of these. It recommends that Pembroke lodge in Richmond park should be refurbished, to include improved catering and toilet facilities. I am pleased to report that an advertisement by the Royal Parks agency for a privately-financed development scheme has already attracted several expressions of interest.

Upper lodge in Bushey park, is currently being offered for residential use on a 125 year lease by the Crown Estate, which has agreed to take the review group's recommendations into account, and this will undoubtedly benefit the future of the building.

Again in Bushey park, Bushey house, currently occupied by the National Physical Laboratory is mentioned by the group, and discussions have already begun with the NPL about how the group's recommendations might be implemented. These will continue.

In its report, the group asks the Government to reaffirm their commitment to opening up for public use wherever possible the various enclosures in private occupation within the royal parks, and to reaffirm the policy against new building in the royal parks unless essential for public use and enjoyment. I am pleased to do so. Discussions with the Crown Estate and others continue to address the first issue; on the second, the Royal Parks agency is assessing the role of all buildings in the parks, and 255W considering how to make the best use of them. I can confirm that any new building would take place only if considered to be of benefit to park visitors.

I was particularly interested to read the group's views on sport in the two parks, and pleased to note the group's recommendations, which assess how the changing needs of sports enthusiasts can be met in future years, without spoiling the character of the parks.

Like the review group, I endorse the recommendation to relocate the golf centre to the disused nursery site at Chohole gate, and have asked the Royal Parks agency to discuss with the relevant authorities the impact of such a scheme on the surrounding road network. I note the opportunities for private investment and for improving what is already a much loved facility. Any change to the existing arrangements will undoubtedly have an effect on the current contractor and I am pleased to note that they have been involved in discussions and assured that they will be included in any future tender.

As Minister responsible for the royal parks I am conscious of the fact that many organisations put back into the parks as much as they take out, and I have been pleased to note the group's recommendation that a joint sports club working party should be established to discuss the group's recommendations on how sports facilities can best be integrated into the parks.

The group made a number of other recommendations to improve the ambience of the parks, including improvements to entrances, highlighting links with the Thames and other attractions and ensuring that wherever possible the landscape of each park is maintained without artificial or unsightly boundaries. Discussions have already begun on a number of these matters, which impact on sports clubs and neighbouring properties.

I also note the group's comments about the potential benefits of the Longford river, of making sections more accessible to the public, and endorse the recommendation to establish a working party to discuss these with local residents and interested groups.

The full cost of implementing the recommendations is not yet known as further studies are required in many instances and it will also be necessary to consider the royal parks' requirements alongside other demands on my Department's budget. In the main however, all expenditure will have to be met from the Royal Parks agency's current and future maintenance budgets. However, the agency will be seeking sponsorship, private finance or lottery funding where appropriate.

With its report on Richmond and Bushey parks, the group also submitted its final conclusions, based on its findings in the five years since its inception in 1991. Many of its comments on the management of the royal parks are encouraging and applaud the progress which has been made by the Royal Parks agency over the past three years: the appointment of landscape architects for all parks, the pedestrianisation in front of Buckingham palace in St. James's park, the restoration of the Avenue gardens in Regent's park, improved catering facilities in Hyde park and Greenwich park—all carried out alongside continuing high horticultural standards.

The report also refers to projects which have not, as yet, been progressed. In some cases this is due to the unavailability of necessary funds; in others the 256W prioritisation of work had resulted in concentration on other, more pressing objectives. Nevertheless, I believe that what the Royal Parks agency has already achieved within the three year's since its creation, is truly impressive.

I am most grateful for the contribution and time Dame Jennifer and her group have given to the review and for their comprehensive reports and constructive recommendations. Their work over the past five years has helped to shape the future of the royal parks and is much appreciated.