Memorandum from the Chief Executive of
the Royal Parks
Thank you for your letter of 17 May, and the
opportunity to provide views to the sub-committee.
GENERAL POSITION
It is clear that the current arrangements for
visiting Parliament are haphazard at best and in some circumstances
unhelpful. I recently had to give evidence to the Public Accounts
Committee and found myself queuing in the rain for over 20 minutes
to gain entry. In the end, I was rescued from the queue by the
Clerk of the Committee otherwise I fear I would have been late
for the start of the hearing. I was not on that occasion visiting
in the sense envisaged by the Committee, but there were large
numbers of people in that queue most of whom were seeking to get
to the Strangers Gallery. I am not sure what they made of it.
In my previous role, I was responsible for helping
to find the new home for the Law Lords (the Supreme Court) in
Middlesex Guildhall. One of the key requirements identified by
the Law Lords at the start of that process was a visitor facility,
including an educational element and a shop. It would be virtually
inconceivable to design a new public building without giving thought
to visitors and seeking to enhance the visitor experience. As
part of our Bushy Park enhancement project (co-funded by the Heritage
Lottery Fund) we will be building a new visitor centre, and I
see that as a forerunner to visitor focussed centres in each of
the Royal Parks. I, therefore, support the concept of a Parliamentary
Visitor Centre whole-heartedly.
To provide the greatest enhancement of the experience,
the centre needs to be either within the confines of the building
(eg as all senior football clubs now have in their grounds) or
as close as possible to the entrance (eg the London Eye). Given
the security implications and limited space within the Palace
of Westminster, the reasons for proposing Abingdon Gardens and
Victoria Tower Gardens are immediately apparent. Although choosing
either would see a permanent end to a little of London's green
space and, as you might expect, I would like to retain as much
green space as possible. That said, and despite it being ruled
out three years ago I am happy for us to consider again the suitability
of Victoria Tower Gardens.
SPECIFIC QUESTIONS
View on suitability:
The reasons for Victoria Tower Gardens being
ruled out previously should be the starting point for considering
its suitability. At first blush Victoria Tower Gardens may appear
to be well located. However, the visitor centre does nothing for
the children living in the Peabody Trust housing in the Millbank
area. Any developments in the open spaces in this area should
make a clear commitment to inclusivity.
As I understand the previous concerns, a number
could be overcome if the visitor centre were to be built down
the way (ie below ground) rather than up the way. This would also
have the benefit of retaining the gardens for other users. I believe
part of the previous concern was blocking the view of the west
facade of the Palace.
Need for a Visitor Centre:
As set out above, there is a clear need for
a visitor centre. In a time of falling voter participation it
is crucial that the importance of Parliament can be explained
to visitors in a digestible and helpful form.
Scope of the project:
All of the facilities described in the project
proposed by previous committees are required.
What other facilities:
This needs to be balanced against the concerns
about reducing the amount of green space in central London. In
the 14 months that I have been in post I have been considering
how the agency could best develop the gardens, and my predecessors
have drawn up ambitious schemes for them. However, lack of funding
has hampered getting those plans off the drawing board. I have,
therefore, considered how we could generate an income from the
Gardens, through for example, corporate events or a destination
restaurant. The former was my favoured option, as it meant only
temporary use of the space, and I believed that it would be more
likely to receive permission from Westminster City Council and
support from the House authorities. If there were to be a building,
I would wish to consider whether there was an on-going income
that could be generated for the upkeep and enhancement of the
gardens.
MORI estimates:
I have no reason to doubt the figures suggested
by MORI. It may be of interest to note that the Diana, Princess
of Wales Memorial Fountain had 880,000 visitors in its first full
year of opening. If the proposal goes forward, I would be happy
to share the lessons of that project on creating very popular
attractions in green spaces.
The obvious needs of any visitor facility are
provision of basic amenities—particularly toilets and food
outlets. There should also be a consideration of the impact on
public transport, and Transport for London would be best able
to advise on this.
Inn the Park:
The conversion of this building to provide quality
catering and an enhanced experience has had a limited impact on
the number of visitors to St James's Park: the capacity of the
building is significantly less than that of the park. However,
the success of the restaurant has had a significant impact on
the income of the agency and has brought in users at times when
previously very few people would have visited the park (eg evening
diners).
8 June 2006
| 
