Written evidence submitted by Historic England [PKS 195]

Historic England is the Government’s statutory adviser on all matters relating to the historic environment in England.  We are a non-departmental public body sponsored by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS).  We champion and protect England’s historic places, providing expert advice to local planning authorities, developers, owners and communities to help ensure our historic environment is properly understood, enjoyed and cared for.  Our submission focuses particularly on the historic and cultural value of our public parks, lessons from the past, and starts by providing some context. 

Summary

• Our public parks and open spaces are an important part of our urban heritage and infrastructure[1]. They are very diverse but many date back to the 1850s and 1860s.  Over 300 historic public parks are designated for their national importance. The historic and cultural significance of public parks is often underestimated. However 80% of people think local heritage makes their area a better place to live[2]. Our urban heritage is also important to the economy and tourism.
• The historic public parks are often large and complex landscapes. They are the major elements in our Green Infrastructure and critical to climate change adaptation in our towns and cities. The opportunity to create new large scale urban parks is rare. Existing green spaces need investment and protection. It is vital we both maximise their Green Infrastructure benefits and manage the climate change risks facing these cultural assets.
• Historic England’s new research report on the history of public park funding models shows local authority management over 170 years has ensured parks have survived even through late 20th century funding crises.  More recently local authorities have delivered a host of highly successful Heritage Lottery Fund projects to restore public parks. Historically all other funding models have failed. Since Victorian times public parks have been dogged by lack of recognition as an essential infrastructure and service as local authorities have no statutory duty.  It is critical that the status of public parks is resolved.

Context             

Historic England is responsible for the Register of Parks & Gardens of Special Historic Interest in England, which identifies designed landscapes of national importance.

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) [3] recognises registered parks and gardens as designated heritage assets. It requires local planning authorities to take account of ‘the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets and putting them to viable uses consistent with their conservation; (and) the wider social, cultural, economic and environmental benefits that conservation of the historic environment can bring’ .

Since the Committee’s 1999 inquiry, Historic England has reviewed its Register and there are now over 300 public parks (including country parks) on the National Heritage List for England (NHLE)[4]. These parks have been selected because of their age or rarity, influence, status as early or representative examples, association with significant designers or others and historic events, or importance for their group value with other heritage assets.  The majority of registered public parks are designated because they are relatively early and the landscaping and structural planting has survived well[5]. The three date bands are:

• Sites developed between 1833 (the date of the Select Committee on Public Walks) and 1875 (Public Health Act) where enough of the landscaping survives to reflect the original design
• Sites mainly developed between 1875 and the Second World War where landscaping is notable and survives intact or almost intact
• Sites laid out post-1945 but more than 30 years ago where the design is of exceptional note and the key elements survive essentially intact.

We continue to add to the NHLE and recent examples are several war memorial parks and gardens.  As well as registration, many public park buildings and structures like gates, railings and statues are designated as listed buildings, and there are also scheduled monuments such as castles and ruins in some parks. Public parks and green spaces often also shape Conservation Areas.

The NHLE also includes other registered public green spaces such as pleasure gardens, seaside gardens, botanic gardens, 20th century landscaping, town squares and public walks, and cemeteries and crematoria. 

As well as the registered public parks, there are hundreds more of local interest (many of which are formally identified by local planning authorities and also subject to a degree of protection under the NPPF). Historic England has encouraged research and recording through Local Lists[6] and the Parks & Gardens UK database[7]; carried out our own studies on the archaeology and history of commons[8], and histories of public parks[9]; and worked with the Green Flag Award scheme[10] to champion well-managed parks and green spaces. Our own research review[11] work highlights the need to do more to raise awareness of the historic and cultural significance of our public parks.

Who uses parks and open spaces, how often and for what?

Britain was the first country to develop public parks and the concept was adopted across the world. The Victorians’ ‘People’s Park’ branding clearly expresses the role of the new parks.  Parks in Halifax, Luton, and Banbury are still called ‘People’s Park’ and around the world there are others like Shanghai, Berkeley (California) and Jersey.  

Generations have since used and enjoyed our public parks and open spaces and continue to do so.  Different types and sizes of parks and green spaces offer different experiences, and many people will use more than one park or green space during any year.  DTLR (now DCLG) 2002 research[12] found that nearly 70% of people use their parks frequently, and many go every day.  This was corroborated by Keep Britain Tidy[13] in 2010. From our own Heritage Counts[14] research we know the second most popular type of heritage site visited by the public is a historic garden or park. Heritage Lottery Fund’s (HLF) new State of UK Public Parks[15] report confirms that 57% of UK adults who use their parks do so at least once a month or more.  HLF [16] estimates that 34million people make regular visits to parks making parks one of the UK’s most heavily used public services and we also know found people view green space as a key service, alongside housing, education and policing [17]. GreenSpace’s 2010 report[18] summarises the considerable body of evidence on who uses parks. 

The contribution of parks to the health and well-being of communities

Public parks were created to offer healthy recreation for all, and especially the working classes.   The seminal People’s Parks The Design and Development of Victorian Parks in Britain (1991)[19] describes the desperate physical need in the 19th  century for open space as towns and cities grew in density,  and ‘the ‘problem’ of working-class recreation’.  The Victorians saw recreation as offering mental and physical well-being, and social benefits; literally a ‘re-creation’.  The Victorians also understood that parks could serve as ‘The Lungs’ of the cities.  The development of public parks is very much interrelated with the emergence of the working day, working week and statutory holidays, the welfare of employees and civic consciousness, and the Public Health Acts.

125 years on there is a re-awakening about the health and well-being role of public parks.    GreenSpace’s 2010 Understanding the Contribution Parks and Green Spaces can make to Improving People’s Lives [20] includes findings such as:

• 91% of people believe that public parks and open spaces improve quality of life
• Play patterns established in childhood are linked to adult health and health behaviour, and in particular playing creatively as a child predicts a healthier diet and more active play is associated with generally better health
• People living on a low income in deprived urban areas are more likely to experience worse health and be less physically active
• Living near parks, woodland or other open spaces helps to reduce health inequalities, regardless of social class
• Where people have good perceived and/or actual access to green space they are 24% more likely to be physically active
• A daily walk in the park reduces the risk of a heart attack by 50%
• More contact with the outdoors reduces stress and can prevent and reduce depression and anxiety.

Keep Britain Tidy [21] reported people used parks ‘to enhance our closest relationships, to chill out, to interact with our communities and to have a good time’. In CABESpace’s 2010[22] research 60% of interviewees thought pleasant local green spaces would improve their overall physical health, 48% thought it could improve their mental health, and 46% thought it would make them feel better about their relationships with family and friends; and improving the quality of spaces can encourage more active use and exercise. Historic England’s own research shows that the well-being value of visiting heritage sites is the equivalent to £1,646 per person per year[23].

In May 2016, the King’s Fund[24] added even more evidence with their report on the impact of gardens and the role of gardening in the health and care system.  A new Preventative Medicine Journal paper concludes green spaces are worth £2.2bn to public health in England[25]. The Culture White Paper[26] reports that local health and care commissioners are increasingly interested in the beneficial effects of culture on health and well-being; and a new charter on the lifestyle and community ‘big impacts’ of horticulture and public parks was proposed at this summer’s Health and Horticulture conference[27] . Yet, the evidence base is only described as ‘expanded exponentially’ and ‘strengthening’[28].  

The Committee on Climate Change also stressed the importance of urban parks and green spaces in managing heat-related health issues as temperatures in built-up areas increase due to climate change, and the need to reverse the decline in parks[29].

Funding and management models and alternatives

• The impact of reductions in local authority budgets on parks
• What the advantages and disadvantages are of other management models, such as privatisation, outsourcing or mutualisation
• What additional or alternative funding is available and what scope is there for local authorities to generate revenue from park users

The three issues identified by the Committee have been the focus of discussions amongst the public park sector as the consequences of the 2010 Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR) have been implemented. 

Our research report History of Public Park Funding and Management (1820 – 2010) was commissioned to contribute to this debate and to achieve better public policy through an understanding of the history, and also to inform our own work. The report is included with this submission (see appendix).

In exploring the relationship between the physical environment of parks, their buildings and amenities and the funding and management models, the researcher looked at the roles of central and local government, benefactors (spanning philanthropy to self-interest and developers), funding bodies like the HLF, the historic role of the community as subscribers and volunteers, the history of the transfer of parks to local authority control and stewardship, and the funding models for the establishment, landscaping and management (including income generation) of the new parks and new park features.

The research challenges assumptions about past management and funding. It shows that the foundations of today’s funding problems, and those in the 1970s/80s, lie with how the parks were originally set up and the lack of adequate means to ensure long term maintenance. Past private and community sector funding failed to generate a continuous, consistent and long term income stream, and ultimately failed.  By the 20th century nearly all had been taken on, and often rescued, by local authorities. The Victorian parks survived largely intact until the 1970s.  Local authorities have delivered over a century of sustainable management.

The future of parks

• What the administrative status of parks should be in light of declining local authority resources for non-statutory services
• How new and existing parks can best be supported

It takes many years for parks to mature and fully develop. A long term management approach is needed for each park and the overall Green Infrastructure. 

By the mid-1980s, many parks were unfit for use and no-go areas. It has taken £850+million[30] of Lottery funding and 20 years to see parks restored, fit to use and enjoy, and to reveal their historic significance.   In re-thinking funding for public parks, the Government needs to be cautious that this investment is not wasted and the historic significance of these parks put at risk. 

The survival of public parks, in some cases for over 150 years, demonstrates their on-going value to communities.  In particular the large parks have proven adaptable incorporating new features and facilities, but there have also been problems.  The 2001 Public Park Assessment[31] showed huge losses in park features and facilities from gardens, cafés and toilets to paddling pools, tennis courts and boats.

Our public parks vary from small sites to spacious areas.  Southwark’s 1973 Burgess Park (56 ha), Liverpool’s 1978 Everton Park (40 ha) and the 2012 Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park (226 hectares) are examples of the ‘once in a generation’ opportunities to create large parks in built-up city centres.  The last major period for large urban public parks development was in the 1920s/1930s[32]. Our public parks should therefore be treasured as the opportunity to enrich and green our towns and cities at this scale is unlikely to happen again.

As discussed in our report the lack of a statutory duty has haunted public parks for more than a century[33].  Recommendations[34] to establish a new duty to provide and maintain parks have been resisted several times, but the lack of recognition of parks as an essential service or element of local infrastructure does need to be resolved in some way if the multiple benefits of public parks, especially as Green Infrastructure, are to be realised. The investigation by the Committee into how parks can be integrated with local authorities’ other strategic roles and services would be most interesting in this regard, specifically in relation to public health, welfare and social justice, environmental protection, education and culture; and also a focus on 21st century style local authority leadership and coordination; and innovation in delivery of parks services, fund-raising, and partnerships especially with local communities. 

The Inquiry is welcomed by Historic England. We need a secure future of our public parks many of which are of historic and cultural importance. They are critical as ‘Lungs’, and for the mental and physical well-being of urban communities.  We will be tracking historic public parks through our Heritage at Risk programme[35].

APPENDIX Historic England Research Report 20/2016 History of Public Park Funding and Management (1820-2010) (Dr Katy Layton-Jones) (overleaf) published online at https://historicengland.org.uk/research/research-results/research-reports/

Building and Landscape
Conservation

History of Public Park Funding and Management (1820–2010)

Katy Layton-Jones, consultant

Research Report Series 020-2016

History of Public Park Funding and Management

(1820–2010)

Katy Layton-Jones

© Historic England

ISSN 2059-4453 (Online)

Report Series 020-2016

History of Public Park Funding and Management (1820–2010)

The Research Report Series incorporates reports by Historic England’s expert teams and commissioned reports. The series replaces the former Centre of Archaeology Report Series, the Archaeological Investigation Report Series, the Architectural Investigation Report Series, the Research Department Report Series.

Many of the Research Reports are of an interim nature and serve to make available the results of specialist investigations in advance of full publication. They are not usually subject to external refereeing, and their conclusions may sometimes have to be modified in the light of information not available at the time of the investigation. Where no final project report is available, readers must consult the author before citing these reports in any publication.

Opinions expressed in Research Reports are those of the author (s) and not necessarily those of Historic England.

For more information contact Res.reports@HistoricEngland.org.uk or write to Historic England, Conservation Department, The Engine House, Fire Fly Avenue, Swindon, SN2 2EH

Front cover: The statue of Sir Robert Peel (1788–1950) in Bradford's Peel Park. Peel served twice as Prime Minister and twice as Home Secretary. There are several public parks named after him.

© Tim Green www.flickr.com/photos/atoach/5084276261/in/photostream/

FOREWORD

There are an estimated 27,000 public parks in Britain and 2.6 billion visits to parks each year. Many of these parks are of historic and cultural interest, and some 300 are registered as nationally important. For over a century, the vast majority of public parks have been provided and run by local authorities but these authorities have no statutory duty to fund or maintain public parks. The Heritage Lottery Fund’s new State of UK Public Parks (September 2016)i highlights that “92 per cent of park managers report their maintenance budgets have reduced in the past three years and 95 per cent expect their funding will continue to reduce”.

In July 2016 the House of Commons Communities and Local Government Select Committee announced an inquiry into public parks to examine concerns that public parks are under threat. The Select Committee is interested in:

• The impact of reductions in local authority budgets on parks
• What the administrative status of parks should be in light of declining local authority resources for non-statutory services
• How new and existing parks can best be supported
• What additional or alternative funding is available and what scope is there for local authorities to generate revenue from park users
• What the advantages and disadvantages are of other management models, such as privatisation, outsourcing or mutualisation.

Historic England commissioned Dr Katy Layton-Jones, a cultural historian and historical consultant, to provide an overview of past public park funding models, and their management. Her research findings show a long history of funding problems but also the important role of local authorities in developing, and often rescuing parks, and delivering public parks for all over 170 years.

We are now sharing this report as Historic England's contribution to the inquiry, as in looking for new solutions, we also need to understand why funding issues have arisen. The research report will also be of interest to local authority portfolio holders, parks teams, friends groups and urban historians.

Dr Layton-Jones findings and recommendations are her own rather than Historic England's, but they are corroborated by the evidence in our own National Heritage List.  The research complements the Heritage Lottery Fund, Big Lottery Fund and Nesta Rethinking Parks work looking into new funding models, and also the recommendations in the Heritage Lottery Fund’s new reportii . The research report will also be of interest to local authority portfolio holders, parks teams, friends groups and urban historians.

We need to develop innovative solutions to secure the future of parks, but the critical issue is to resolve the status of public parks. Since Victorian times public parks have been dogged by the lack of statutory protection and status as essential infrastructure and service. In 2003 the House of Commons Housing, Planning, Local Government and the Regions Committeeiii recommended that local authorities should be given a new statutory duty, and 13 years the pivotal role of local authorities and the need for on-going local authority leadership is highlighted in the Heritage Lottery Fund report. Dr Layton-Jones' report helps clarify the history.

Jenifer White

National Landscape Adviser

Conservation Department, Historic England

________________________

i  https://www.hlf.org.uk/state-uk-public-parks-2016

ii  https://www.hlf.org.uk/state-uk-public-parks-2016

iii www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200203/cmselect/cmodpm/673/673.pdf

SUMMARY

The Report

This report examines and contextualises the history of public park funding and park management between c.1820 and the Government’s Comprehensive Spending Review in 2010. It uses case studies, interviews with, and statements from park professionals past and present, and historical evidence from a variety of sources, to demonstrate how various funding and management models have shaped the significance of these historic designed landscapes and their environments. In so doing, it represents a real opportunity to inform and shape the current debate on funding models and future heritage protection.

Part One: Scope and Purpose of the Review

In Part One the report explores the need for renewed consideration of the funding question in relation to public parks and urban green space. It provides a brief history of the origins of the funding crisis facing parks today, outlines the specific aims and objectives of the report, and introduces the people and organisations involved in the research and preparation of the findings. Discrete sections address successive policy directions of national government, the historical foundations of today’s funding problems, and recent attempts to research and evaluate funding strategies.

Part Two: Historical Funding Models

Part Two uses case studies to present a summary of historical funding models that have been applied across the United Kingdom over the past 200 years. These are broadly categorised under the following headings: philanthropy (in the form of donation of real estate or cash sums), subscription, taxation, grants, loans, speculative development, endowment, and revenue creation within parks. Although not fully comprehensive, the case studies presented are representative of the many and diverse range of funding innovations tried and tested by successive management regimes.

Part Three: Management Models

Complementing Part Two, this section outlines the two most common management models employed over the lifetime of the nation’s public parks: not-for-profit companies (including trusts) and local authority in-house management. In so doing, it charts the impact of policy changes at a local and national level upon the culture of parks provision and management.

Part Four: Summary of Research Findings

Part Four comprises a summary of findings of the research, including the potential advantages and dangers of resurrecting former funding regimes. The intention is not to make recommendations for any specific site, but rather to distil some of the most significant lessons to be found littered throughout the historical record. It is hoped that awareness of the past will ensure informed and mindful decision-making in the future.

References

The references listed here include only those works that pertain partially or wholly to the subject of parks funding. Where works published after the cut-off date of 2010 are listed, they incorporate material pertinent to the earlier period. The references are organised in nine sections: reports, pamphlets and guidance documents; articles and book chapters; books; unpublished research; unpublished interviews and correspondence with practitioners; local archives and council minutes; planning applications; newspapers; and websites.

Appendices

The appendices include a timeline of public park funding and management in England, notes on the author and contributors, a chronology of public park developments, and a list of the registered public parks and gardens.

CONTRIBUTORS AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The author, Dr Katy Layton-Jones, would like to thank the many individuals who advised and reviewed the report. In particular: Drew Bennellick (Heritage Lottery Fund), Dr Katherine Drayson (author of Park Land 2013 and Green Society 2014), David Foster (The Parks Trust, Milton Keynes), Professor John R Gold (Oxford Brookes University), Steve Hardiman, Dr Stewart Harding and David Lambert (The Parks Agency), Professor Robert Lee, Dr Carole O’Reilly (University of Salford), Paul Rabbitts (public parks author and Watford Borough Council), Lydia Ragoonanan (Nesta), Jenifer White and Owain Lloyd-James (Historic England) and the Historic England Historic Parks and Gardens Panel.

Further information on the contributors is given in Appendix B.

DATE OF RESEARCH

Dr Katy Layton-Jones was commissioned in March 2015 (reference 6443) under the (former) English Heritage National Heritage Protection Programme (4A1.106). The research work was carried out from March to November 2015 and the final report submitted January 2016.

EDITING AND LAYOUT

Jenifer White and Ari Georgiou, Conservation Department, Historic England.

CONTACT DETAILS FOR THIS REPORT

Conservation Department, Historic England, The Engine House, Fire Fly Avenue, Swindon SN2 2EH

Email: conservation@HistoricEngland.org.uk

CONTENTS

Part One: Scope And Purpose Of THE Review             

The Funding Crisis             

Funding and Management: an Historical Dilemma for Modern Britain             

Government Policy Directions             

The Pursuit of Elusive Answers              

PART TWO: HISTORICAL FUNDING MODELS             

Philanthropy

Taxation

Grants             

Loans             

Speculative Development              

Endowment             

Revenue Creation within Parks             

PART THREE: MANAGEMENT MODELS              

Trusts and Not-for-Profit Companies             

Local Authority In-House Service             

PART FOUR: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS             

Philanthropy              

Subscription             

Taxation             

Grants             

Loans             

Speculative Development             

Endowment             

Revenue Creation within Parks             

REFERENCES             

APPENDICES             

Appendix A - Timeline of Public Park Funding and Management in England

Appendix B - Notes on the Author and Contributors                           

Appendix C - Hazel Conway’s ‘Chronology of Main Municipal and Public Park Developments 1800–1885, And Map’

Appendix D - Registered Public Parks
Part One: Scope And Purpose Of THE Review

The Funding Crisis

Public park funding in England is entering a crisis. Triggered to some extent by the 2008 global recession, it echoes the economic pressure on all public services. The programme of austerity that has shaped public policy and expenditure since 2010 has hit the non-statutory parks sector especially hard, and the loss of CABESpace after the 2010 Comprehensive Spending Review left parks without leadership (Drayson, 2013, 7). The Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment [CABE] was the Government’s advisor on architecture, urban design and public space). In 2013, the financial collapse of the charity GreenSpace, which had attempted to fill the vacuum left by CABESpace, came as no surprise to those who were aware of the funding problems and challenges facing park managers. However, to those who look further into the history of the nation's public green spaces, their creation and evolution, the origins of our current dilemma can be found throughout the sector's long history. From the lack of real Parliamentary action following the Select Committee on Public Walks in 1833, the housing crashes that undermined successive development schemes in the late 19th century, the material damage wrought by aerial bombing during the Second World War, to the race to the bottom prompted by Compulsory Competitive Tendering in the 1980s, it is perhaps a miracle that any of our public parks have survived at all. Although decades of successive legislation and policy initiatives have shaped green space provision, they have rarely been attended by the funds required to make positive changes (see Appendix A). For those seeking solutions, the past might then seem to hold few answers to our problems. Yet, there have been successes and periods of relative financial stability for specific sites and communities. Whatever their weaknesses, historical models have delivered us a large and diverse canon of green space, much of it dating back to the 1850s and 1860s. In many instances, Victorian public parks survived largely intact until the 1970s, which equates to over a century of sustainable management. If we are to depart from what has gone before, then we must do so advisedly. As we look to the future, it is essential that we take an honest and frank view of the past and when we do we may find within it both the origins of our predicament and its solution. We cannot afford to repeat the mistakes of our predecessors.

There is some resistance to engaging fully with the historical reality of our public parks; there is a tendency to romanticise the actions of 19th-century civic leaders and demonise the actions of their 20th-century successors. Numerous recent reports refer warmly to the founding of our earliest parks and the financial models employed in their creation. Philanthropy, subscription, and land donation are celebrated as evidence of the vision and generosity of previous generations (Drayson, 2014, 60–61). Yet, in reality, these were often strategies of last resort to which towns and cities turned when the anticipated parliamentary commitment to public green space failed to materialise. Furthermore, they ultimately failed. The popular mantra today is that the financial failure of public parks occurred during the late 20th century, under the watch of local authorities. However, as this report demonstrates, the foundations of the funding crisis we face today were laid down with the parks themselves. Revenues from associated housing developments barely extended beyond capital investment, cash donations were similarly exhausted at the laying-out stage, and long-term budgetary planning was impossible. The power to raise rates locally to fund ongoing park maintenance arrived decades too late for many cities, while the lack of local authority statutory protection has resulted in over 170 years of economic vulnerability. It is therefore erroneous to conclude that the emerging crisis in funding our public green spaces is a consequence of depending exclusively on public taxation. Rather, we must concede that it represents a systemic failure of numerous funding models, many of them commercial and entrepreneurial, but all of them implemented in reaction to a lack of any long-term financial and political commitment to public park provision. Studying the various ways in which park providers have responded to social, political, and economic pressures over the past 170 years highlights the scale of the challenge facing us today and lays bare the reality that the success of any model is ultimately dependent on a continuous, consistent and guaranteed income stream – a quality that has proved as elusive in the private sector as in the public.

Scope and Limitations

The primary focus of this research is parks and gardens that are accessible to the public for free, whether funded entirely from the public purse or not. While other forms of green space, such as cemeteries, are not the focus of the project, attention has been paid to such sites where their management and funding has been handled in tandem with neighbouring parks or when an especially innovative or successful strategy has been employed in their protection and management. The geographical focus is England. However, pertinent examples from other countries have been included to illustrate strategies that have either not been adopted in the UK, or else where familiar strategies have resulted in notably different outcomes.

The report considers:

• Municipal and public parks in England
• Designated and non-designated public parks
• The historic designed landscape and its infrastructure
• The period c.1820 to 2010.

In exploring the relationship between the physical environment of parks (buildings, planting, layout, amenities and so on) and their funding and management models, the report considers:

• The roles of central and local government
• The historic roles of benefactors spanning philanthropy to self-interest such as dignitaries, reformists, landowners, entrepreneurs; speculative developers and businesses, and new developments (including Heritage Lottery Fund [HLF]/Big Lottery)
• The role of funding bodies, such as the HLF
• The historic role of the community, such as subscriptions and volunteers
• The history of the transfer of parks to local authority control and ownership
• Funding models for the establishment, landscaping and management (including income generation) of the new parks, and individual park features.

Aims and Objectives

The report seeks to achieve better public policy through an understanding of the history of public parks funding and management. The aims of the project are to:

• Provide a better understanding of the history of park funding and management models, and how they operated through time
• Explore the relationship, whether direct or indirect, between the physical environment of parks (buildings, planting, layout, amenities and so on) and their funding and management models
• Examine objectively the economic, social, conservation, and cultural risks associated with different funding and management regimes
• Provide briefing for the current debate of future funding models
• Advise on the heritage protection implications of past and future funding models for public parks and park features of special historic interest
• Inform the Historic England Corporate Plan and Heritage 2020.

Methodology

The research was achieved via a number of methods, which will draw upon the author’s experience in both the academic and historic environment sectors. Local authority archives were consulted, as well as the wider historical record in the form of local and national newspapers, pamphlets, and reports. An extensive network of professional stakeholders and specialists was consulted, incorporating academics, heritage professionals, council officers (current and retired), managers of green spaces and public open spaces, and non-government organisations [NGOs].

Funding and Management: an Historical Dilemma for Modern Britain

... all efforts to escape from the grimness of the present into nostalgia for a still intact past, or into the anticipated oblivion of a better future, are vain.”
(Arendt, The Burden of Our Time, 1951)

There is no ideal economic climate for a non-statutory local authority service such as public parks. In times of austerity, they are the first to be hit by falling budgets, while in times of economic growth and rising land values, they are vulnerable targets for developers of commercial or residential units. Without statutory protection, the risk of development hangs over sites, potentially deterring any large-scale investment in the landscape. Today, compounding these weaknesses is public suspicion that any new approaches to funding and managing public parks will lack a commitment to the tenets of public ownership and access. If, as Jones and Wills contend, “the park landscape has commonly functioned as a paradigm of reaction against contemporary social problems, promising…a natural remedy to civic alienation” we should give careful consideration to what occurs when agencies of social alienation are perceived to be encroaching on the park itself (Jones and Wills, 2005, 173–4). As Gaffkin, Mceldowney, and Sterrett observe, in recent decades “the commercialisation and privatisation of social life has crowded out the communal public realm and promoted partitioned social space” (Gaffkin, Mceldowney and Sterret, 2010, 495). The question of funding parks sits at the very centre of an ideological conflict over Britain’s civil society.

Large public parks were created by the most commercially-minded of societies, during the golden age of British manufacturing, urbanisation, and a mercantile oligarchy. They were not situated within a bucolic idyll, but rather, were fabricated among factory chimneys and housing developments. Nevertheless, the great public parks of Britain were always ‘for’ the city, rather than ‘of’ the city. Parks were founded and funded in direct response to a realisation that wealth creation was merely one facet of a thriving modern society. Furthermore, the need for parks was identified as a direct consequence of commercial activity, and therefore the responsibility of those who benefitted most from the capitalist system (Hull Packet and East Riding Times, 1 Nov 1844, 8 and Bradford Observer, 15 August 1844). In their earliest meetings on the subject, the wealthy men of Birmingham, Bristol, Hull, Leeds, Liverpool, and Manchester expressed with great clarity and vehemence the necessity that these green spaces remain free of charge and accessible to all; that they should serve as philosophical as well as topographical antidotes to commerce and industry. Although some minor facilities within parks were used to raise revenue, such as cafés, boating lakes, and fishing ponds, there is little evidence to suggest that those who provided and managed the nation's public parks in the early years thought of them as commercial assets. Of course, some may argue that this has contributed to their vulnerability, but it has also guaranteed their survival. The inherent character of the public park as an alternative landscape, as a site of commercial neutrality within which the civic virtue of serving the common good is manifest, has been defended by successive generations. The principle of a landscape accessible to all has shaped as much as served British civic life. As an appeal made at the Free Trade Hall in Manchester in September 1844 demonstrates:

Every woman who finds her children's sport restricted to the smallness of her house, and their health deteriorated by continual habitation of crowded streets, and who loves her offspring and wishes them to live, should move herself, and induce her husband to move, in support of the establishment of free public parks. Above and before all, every person engaged in the improvement of the masses, physical, intellectual, or moral, should exert himself and work earnestly in this question; for the establishment of free parks will excite the mind in action, by supplying instructive and pleasing lessons in science; will moralise by the association of classes, and the generation of sympathy between them. Educators of youth should engage in this work; for free parks will supply them with free school rooms, full of ever-changing and beautiful apparatus.
(Manchester Times, 14 Sept 1844)

The great emphasis placed on serving the public interest as an intrinsic quality of parks and gardens has continued to the present day and the term ‘privatisation’ is one of the most divisive and inflammatory in the sector. Furthermore, as an issue it demands immediate attention. In June 2015, the BBC news website published a clear statement of concern by Councillor Julian Bell, chair of London Councils' Transport and Environment Committee, who speculated that unless local authorities receive real financial help from national government, they will no longer be able to protect parks from acquisition by private companies. Bell argued that such companies could remove public access and reserve historically public spaces for use by their paying customers exclusively. The DCLG responded that “all councils should work in partnership with local communities to ensure they have access to excellent parks and green spaces” (BBC News, London's Parks, 2015). Although some defend the government's position as localist, others condemn it as passive and evasive.

The disconnection between grand narratives of access to greenspace and the financial implications of realising that principle was not born of the 2008 financial crisis. Despite the ambitions of Victorian civic worthies, in the UK’s post-industrial society the economic and social infrastructure of civic life has dissolved, leaving a legacy of socially and environmentally valuable green spaces, but without the political will or financial and technical superstructures to guarantee their survival. Since the 1970s, successive parliaments and local councils have been accused of reneging on a long-standing contract between government and citizen to protect the commercial neutrality of public green space; the strategies for economic growth expounded by the current government do not indicate any reversal of this damaging perfidy. Successive cuts to funding have been incremental and parks officers have sought to absorb them, resulting in a slow death for parks departments and a lack of appreciation at both a local and a national level of the severity of the crisis.

Not all responsibility for the current predicament lies with politicians past and present, nor even within the sector itself. Academics, journalists, pundits, and campaigners have often over-simplified the debate, missed opportunities for progress, or declared prematurely that the danger has passed. In 2006, Patricia L. Garside, Research Professor at the European Studies Institute, University of Salford claimed that:

At the end of the 20th century, open space at local level had been democratised – it was no longer social elites, planners or municipal bodies who set the ‘green’ standard, but small groups with their own visions of conservation. London’s more pluralist politics enabled green activists to create their own environments.
(Garside in Clark, 2006, 96)

Garside’s claims may also reflect the more recent privileging of ecological conservation over historic conservation in public parks. Either way, statements like this have led the sector to indulge in somewhat unwarranted self-congratulation. While some progress has been made at a local level by Transition Towns and Town Teams, these tend to be restricted to relatively small-scale schemes, such as street tree-planting and micro-allotments at train stations and schools. Any sustainable, sector-changing, long-term provision of funding to local groups is some way off. Suggesting that the parks problem has already been partially solved provides the public with false assurances and impedes essential progress.

To ensure the survival of green spaces in the absence of political consensus, there must be trust between stakeholders. This is particularly difficult to acquire in an age of cuts when reducing bottom line costs has dominated the civic debate. In a climate of budget reduction, the particular needs of parks can be lost within the wider funding crisis facing local authorities and a combination of political evasion and divestment has led to an ideological impasse that exacerbates the crisis facing the sector. The sense of being ignored or of being forced to compete for funding against nursing homes, schools or vulnerable adults has made the entire process of championing local green spaces a painful and divisive process for many. Yet, the alternatives may prove equally destructive. An unpopular funding model that is perceived to be imposed and/or serves private interests above those of the public could prove just as catastrophic for our parks and green spaces as a financially imprudent one. Any decision to build on existing parks should be difficult to view as politically-neutral in light of the ‘presumption in favour of sustainable development’ and green infrastructure in the National Planning Policy Framework’s [NPPF] although there are recent examples of rising public awareness of the vulnerability of public green space (https://saveseftonparkmeadows.org/ and ‘Parks serving 10 million across Britain at risk of being Bulldozed for development’, Daily Express, 3 November 2015). Although there is landscape protection through measures such as greenbelt land and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, the lack of an Act of Parliament to “enshrine in law the responsibility of stewardship for all greenspaces that are currently open to the public” (Dobson, 2012, recommendation 11), has meant that parks have always been vulnerable to development whether led by developers or local authorities. The ‘threat of redevelopment’ was identified in 1993 in Conway and Lambert’s seminal report Public Prospects which recommended that “local plans must recognise the historic interest of these sites, address their conservation, and pay due regard to public opinion, which is likely to be hostile to built development” (Conway and Lambert, 1993, 9–12 and 27).

The opportunity to register Assets of Community Value [ACV] introduced in the Localism Act 2011 affords communities the opportunity to ‘bid’ for the asset should it be sold. However, as Parliament’s own guidance explains, “The scheme does not give first refusal to the community group, unlike the equivalent scheme in Scotland; and it is not a community right to buy the asset, just to bid. This means that the local community bid may not be the successful one” (House of Commons Library, 2015). There is also Community Asset Transfer [CAT], a policy aimed at making use of redundant local authority held assets. As yet there seem to be few examples of ACVs and CATs for parks being taken forward by community groups. In an age of high land prices and pressure to develop, there is some justifiable scepticism regarding communities’ ability to outbid private developers.

This is not a problem unique to England. As Marjaana Niemi notes:

The role of the public in the planning and management of the urban environment has been a lasting concern of the planning systems in Northern European countries since the 1960s and 1970s. Politicians have subscribed – at least in principle – to the view that city-dwellers have the right to be informed and consulted and to express their opinions about matters that affect their environment. Planning officials, for their part, have claimed to have taken account of the views and wishes of the inhabitants of cities. However, participatory endeavours have clearly not accomplished as much as had been hoped for. (Niemi in Clark, 2006, 206)

There is perhaps understandable resistance among some national agencies and charities to acknowledge the political nature of the public green space debate, but questions of ownership and funding can rarely be made ideologically or politically neutral. Whether acknowledged or not, for many people it is a park's fundamentally public nature and the common ownership of land in the midst of private real estate,
as much as their aesthetic and horticultural appeal, that underpins their value. As David Lambert argues, “Parks are political – you either believe in the civic realm
and its maintenance or you don't” (Lambert, 2010, 44). What is clear from the historical archive is that at their most successful and sustainable, public parks were integrated fully into the surrounding community, reflecting the precepts as well as the economics of civic life. If we are to honour our rich inheritance of public parks then new funding models, or even those adapted from historical precedents, must reflect these intrinsic principles.

The trust of the public, who may perceive themselves to be the de facto ‘landowners’ of the parks portfolio, is central to the success and progress of any funding strategy; social sustainability must be sought in tandem with financial sustainability. Those who live near, volunteer in, and patronise their local parks are vigilant and wary; they are also a park’s greatest asset. If local people do not support a new funding model, then the future of that park will remain in jeopardy.

Government Policy Directions

The public has always been aware of the value of parks…Whether this extends to government and government agencies is another matter.
(Conway, 2009, 8)

Since their earliest creation, there has been no clear leadership from national government in terms of public green space provision. The Select Committee on Public Walks of 1833 is commonly identified as a pivotal moment in the provision of public green space in British cities. It was certainly a call to action, but the extent to which that call was heard in Westminster is debatable. In 1840 Parliament made a general fund of £10,000 available to assist local councils in providing parks. However, this meagre sum was woefully inadequate. Even discounting the cost of acquiring land, the laying out costs for a single park could easily amount to double that sum. If a city needed two or three parks, as was often the case, the financial needs of one city alone amounted to five times the sum that Parliament had made available for the entire country (Liverpool Parks Committee, ‘Financial Report’, 31 January 1872). Despite Robert Peel’s high-profile promises, funding at a national level never materialised, and while central government has consistently championed public green spaces, it has left local authorities to fund their creation
and maintenance.

There was perhaps one brief period during which national government took some special interest in the nation’s public parks. In the first half of the 20th century there were two interruptions to parks’ status as sites of recreation. During the two World Wars, parks served both local and national interests by providing land for allotments and facilities such as shelters, anti-aircraft gun posts, and even army encampments. It is telling that it was during these two periods of conflict that national government demonstrated perhaps its greatest interest in park provision, with the War and Home Offices dictating what occurred in many large urban parks. However, the financial impact of wartime damage on parks was never quantified and for reasons of national security, minutes and memos relating to the impact of bombing on cities’ parks remained confidential. It was not until after the war that a full appraisal could take place, by which time local authorities had again been left to manage their green spaces at a local level. Notwithstanding the challenges, those who worked in the sector recall “high levels of staffing, supported by infrastructure such as nurseries producing thousands of bedding plants” up until the 1980s (Anon, 2015).

For much of the 20th century, local authorities balanced their obligations and tax revenues with varying success. However, by the late 1970s the economic pressures of a post-industrial society led to parliamentary intervention in local government in a manner that was to make a significant impact on parks departments and the estates they managed. In 1967 the Maud Committee on the Management of Local Government identified problems in the way in which may council departments appeared to operate autonomously. An inspection of the accounts and minutes of numerous committees suggests this was actually not the case for parks departments. Nevertheless, the Bains report that was published in August 1972, and the Local Government Act of that year, sparked a period of ongoing reorganisation that has certainly impacted on the ability of local authorities to fund, manage, and improve their green spaces (see management strategies below). Many parks departments found themselves clustered with incompatible services. As Jef Smith noted shortly after the report was published:

What corporate management often means in practice is the amalgamation of highly disparate activities into a manageable number of directorates for purely administrative purposes. No one can pretend that schools, museums, parks and libraries, to quote one typical grouping, form anything like a single logical unit in terms of the staff employed or the issues presented.
(Smith, 1972, 34)

Where parks departments remained, they were increasingly placed under the banner of leisure services, which led to parks competing for resources with sports and leisure centres. National recognition of this fundamental change came in 1983 when the Institute of Parks and Recreation Administration changed its name to the Institute of Leisure and Amenity Management [ILAM].

The roles and responsibilities of staff changed to reflect the radical repositioning of parks within the local authority portfolio. As Frazer Chapman has described it, what occurred was “the transformation of the parks superintendent from horticultural journeyman into business manager, and financial accountability rather than horticultural flair and innovation became the order of the day” (Chapman in Woudstra and Fieldhouse, 2002, 122).

Since the 1970s, acceleration in the pace of structural change within local authorities has created its own problems for the green space sector. However, alongside these new work practices there have also been moments of recognition of the broader significance of parks as agents of social, ecological, and cultural enrichment. The Government's ‘Cleaner, Safer, Greener’ initiative introduced in the mid-2000s asserted that “the standard of a local authority’s management and upkeep of the green spaces in its care is a very public indicator of its broader performance” (CABESpace, 2004). Green space plans and strategies were championed to develop a more strategic approach and improve quality of management. HLF’s State of the UK Public Parks research (2014) records that a number of park managers specifically highlighted the value of green space strategies as evidence of a corporate commitment to parks with one manager stating that “due to our Green Space Strategy being agreed, additional funding has been forthcoming from the council to improve our green spaces and parks. Over three-quarters of all councils have a strategy (134 out of 176, or 76.1 per cent) and over two-thirds are up-to-date (108 out of 160, or 67.5 per cent)” (HLF, 2014, 53). However, the pace of change at local authority level can make the implementation of green space strategies challenging. Mission statements and targets can be effective but only if supported by the funding and personnel required to meet them.

The Pursuit of Elusive Answers

Indeed it is safe to assert that there are now few persons who cavil at the expenditure necessary for the acquisition and maintenance of open spaces, because it has come to be universally realised. (Chubb, 1916, 186)

This is not the first report to have sought to address public parks funding. A number of significant studies addressing the past and future of funding and managing parks have been undertaken in recent years, including: Paying for Parks (2006), Rethinking Parks (2013), State of UK Public Parks Renaissance to Risk (2014), Green Society (2014); and Places to Be (2015), and Historic England's own National Review of Research Priorities for Urban Parks, Designed Landscapes, and Open Spaces (2014). Yet, the question of future funding for public green space is growing in urgency. HLF and Big Lottery invest £34 million in parks each year and they are concerned about sustainability. The lottery distributors collaborated with Nesta to explore new ways to use, manage and make the most of the UK's public parks with 11 teams across the county under the banner ‘Rethinking Parks’. The report Learning to Rethink Parks was published in February 2016.

In his foreword to Paying for Parks, the then Chair of the Local Government Association, Lord Bruce-Lockhart, asserted that “using a variety of innovative and different models for funding green space can result in better use of public money, and greater community involvement” (CABESpace, 2006a, 3). While his statement was hardly radical, indeed it has become very conventional, there are two major flaws in its underlying premise. Firstly, there is an incorrect assumption that little innovation has occurred in the parks and green space sector over the past 170 years. As the funding models discussed in Part Two demonstrate, throughout their lifetime, parks have been the subject of intensive and varied innovation in the manner in which they have been managed and funded. Indeed the Nesta approach tests out old and new ideas. Continuity in the design and function of many public parks has led many observers to assume that funding models have remained equally unchanged. Despite strong evidence presented in successive reports about the direct and indirect social, economic, and health benefits of parks, and the diverse ways in which these have been realised historically, the belief in the need for yet more evidence of innovation and value continues.

This is a misconception that continues to plague the public park debate and which prevents the sector from drawing on the successes and failures of past innovations. The second flaw is that it assumes that the only challenge facing parks is the need to learn how to manage public money more efficiently, rather than acknowledging a fundamental shortfall in funding. This was perhaps excusable in a pre-austerity era, when the worst budget cuts appeared to be in the past. Nevertheless, as the historical record demonstrates, parks have baseline funding levels, beneath which even the most innovative and efficient management model cannot function. As Richard Payne, chair of the Streatham Common Co-operative [SCCoop] board of directors has asserted, “The cuts are a huge challenge for anyone running an open space. SCCoop has much lower overheads than a typical provider as we have a pool of volunteers to draw on, but even so the level of cuts that are planned will challenge us and it is hard to see how all services can be maintained” (‘Future of London Parks at Risk’, www.londoncouncils.gov.uk, 19 June 2015).

Historically, successful innovations in funding models were those that delivered a net increase in funds, rather than simply shifting management responsibilities. Innovation is important, but it is also experimental and outcomes are unpredictable. As local authorities remain the funders of last resort, the cost of any failure falls almost exclusively on the tax payer. This is not merely an occasional occurrence in the history of British public parks, it is written into their very existence. In the early years, British parks were shaped by financial failure as much as by success, and the solution has repeatedly been their return to a local authority portfolio with an ever-diminishing budget. Innovations in funding public green space can be successful, but there are rarely risk-free, simple, cheap, or universally applicable. Success is often the result of geographically or historically specific conditions.

In 2006, CabeSpace published Paying for Parks (2006a) outlining eight broad models:

• Traditional local authority funding
• Multi-agency public sector funding
• Taxation initiatives
• Planning and development opportunities
• Bonds and commercial finance
• Income-generating opportunities
• Endowments
• Voluntary and community sector investment.

The report made no claim to be comprehensive and proposed only to consider the ‘main’ ways of funding urban green space. Notwithstanding these caveats, significant sector-changing sources of funding, such as the HLF and Big Lottery, were excluded. To ignore the role of lottery money is to deny the reality of park funding in Britain today. In addition to this key omission, there was a significant conceptual weakness in the decision to segregate interrelated funding models. In reality, a multi-modal approach is nearly always needed and this is corroborated in the new Learning to Rethink Parks report (Nesta, 2016).

One example of this over-simplification was the discussion of The Parks Trust, Milton Keynes. The report presented the trust as an example of the endowment model, without acknowledging that the success, indeed the survival of the trust, was dependent on continuing revenue creation that often took the form of many of the other models identified by the report. The report provided a similarly restrictive and potentially misleading definition of ‘traditional local authority funding’, asserting that “green space managed by local authorities is usually funded from the local authority’s general revenue budget” (CABESpace, 2006a, briefing). In reality, there is not, and has never been, a single ‘traditional’ model of local authority funding. While it is certainly true that throughout much of the 19th and 20th centuries, local authorities managed parks as public assets within a wider model of civil society, the routes by which they acquired and funded the sites were various, changeable and often innovative. The public purse may have funded a great deal of day-to-day maintenance, but capital investment projects, shifting political priorities, and fluctuations in the nation's economic prosperity, have always demanded flexibility and ingenious responses at a local authority level. Many local authorities have been entrepreneurial while maintaining the public status of parks. In fact, for much of their tenure as custodians of our public green spaces, local authorities have employed a diverse mix of the models identified by CABESpace.

In recent years the HLF Parks for People programme has continued that tradition and positively encouraged developing new income streams such as cafés to support funding of parks. Many of the ‘solutions’ attempted in the past were similar to those proposed today, such as privately-managed concessions within the park, special events, and the development of local authority sporting facilities requiring an entrance fee. Thus, rather than ‘alternatives’ to local authority management, many of the funding models identified by CABESpace, as well as a few omitted from that report, can be found throughout the history of public park provision. The next section explores these models and offers some examples of their historical implementation.

PART TWO: HISTORICAL FUNDING MODELS
 

I don't think there's anyone in government listening to any lessons the past
might offer the present!
(David Lambert in consultation, 2015)

Many of the models identified as ‘innovations’ today have been employed in some form in the past. Some were successful, others less so. Although none have protected us from our current conundrum, they can teach us a great deal about the dynamics, motivations and pitfalls that characterise the creation and survival of our green spaces.

Philanthropy
 

The provision of public recreation grounds is not a mere question of ornamental philanthropy…it is also a vital question of social economy and efficiency.
(Metropolitan Public Garden, Boulevard, and Playground Association, 1883, 5–6).

Philanthropy can take different forms. This section discusses:

Charitable donations and voluntary contributions

Donation of land

Transfer of parks

Charitable Donations/Voluntary Contributions

The reliance of early park creators on philanthropic donations is today celebrated and eulogised. It is certainly the case that many of the largest urban parks would not exist today were it not for the capital sums provided by local benefactors. Statues and fountains, as well as the names of the parks themselves, testify to the generosity of philanthropic donors (Conway, 1991, 117–120). Hickman Park, Wolverhampton (1911), Calthorpe Park, Birmingham (1857), Firth Park, Sheffield (1875), and the Vaughan-Yates memorial, Princes Park, Liverpool (1858) as well as bodies such as The Metropolitan Drinking Fountain and Cattle Trough Association (1859) attest to the large sums donated by local ‘worthies’. Some of the great success stories of recent years have also relied heavily on philanthropic donation. As the Central Park Conservancy in New York proclaims, “our work is founded on the belief that citizen leadership and private philanthropy are key to ensuring that the Park and its essential purpose endure” (www.centralparknyc.org). There is clearly a role to be played by philanthropic donation. However, Central Park enjoys one of the wealthiest constituencies in the world and benefits from “a long tradition of large-sale private donation, and tax breaks for such donations” (Lambert, 2014, 43). Such traditions did not necessarily evolve in other cities or countries. Charitable beneficence can also aggravate social inequalities as the giver can assert authority over the recipient (see Calthorpe Park case study below).

As Gareth Stedman Jones noted in Outcast London:

In nearly all societies, gifts however disinterested they may seem, are generally symbols of prestige. “To give”, wrote Mauss, “is to show one’s superiority.”…the gift generally serves as a method of social control. To give, from whatever motives, generally imposes an obligation upon the receiver.
In order to receive one must behave in an acceptable manner, if only by expressing gratitude and humility. (Stedman Jones, 1992, 151–2)

At a practical level, it is also important to acknowledge that sites which were funded primarily through charitable donation are no more protected from the financial crisis facing all public green spaces than any other park or garden. In fact, the historical record suggests that parks created by donations of either cash or land parcels may have suffered in the long-term as a direct result of their reliance upon unpredictable philanthropy.

The fact that cash donations (often in the form of one-off subscriptions; see clarification below) comprised the only means of establishing many parks, gives some indication of the enduring economic fragility of these assets in the absence of a national programme. In her discussion of the creation of Peel, Queen’s, and Philips Parks in Manchester, Drayson notes correctly that both Philips and Peel themselves donated £1,000 towards the purchase of the land required. Public opinion at the time was equally impressed (Sheffield and Rotherham Independent, 21 Sept, 1844). However, the less edifying reality was that when Peel, in his role as Prime Minister, was approached by a deputation from Manchester for a contribution from Parliament, they were offered a mere £3,000 from the public purse. Having anticipated a far larger contribution in light of Peel's reputation as a champion of the parks movement, the small sum on offer threatened the viability of the entire scheme and forced a downscaling of the programme to which other donors had already subscribed.

Notwithstanding this modification, the cost of the city's parks consistently exceed their income for decades to come (O’Reilly, 2009, appendix 7). In short, many of those who are celebrated for having donated sums to fund specific parks were MPs who chose not to exercise their political power to guarantee the long-term economic security of public parks through statutory protection or national grants. The celebrated political reformers of the 19th century all too often sought to reshape the urban landscape while resisting the new fiscal systems required to fund it. The motivations that underpinned this division between private conviction and political will demand our consideration as this disconnect implies a clear historical distinction between notions of public interest at a local and a national level.

The doubtful viability of philanthropic donation as a reliable and sustainable source for parks funding is demonstrated further by the fact that sums raised for the creation of parks were not set aside for their long-term maintenance. An examination of the figures raised reveals that this was often because, although substantial, the original funds were not large enough and simply could not stretch beyond initial laying-out costs. Despite large donations by aristocratic and mercantile individuals, fundraising events, powerful rhetoric, and strong local political will, wealthy industrial cities could rarely raise enough funds by philanthropy to secure the financial stability of their parks.

The exception was the Miners' Welfare parks funded by subscription from the miners themselves. However, with the decline of that industry in the 1970s and 1980s, the parks again were passed to local authorities who struggled to maintain them without any additional funding.

Thus, although there may be ‘considerable capacity for private sector and civil society philanthropy to fund urban green space maintenance’ in the future, the past gives us reasons for caution (Drayson, 2014, 61). The financial legacy of the so-called ‘heroes’ of the Victorian parks movement, was rather less impressive than their statues might lead us to believe.

Donation of Land

There is a piece of proverbial wisdom to the effect that one should not look a gift horse in the mouth…The propriety, or otherwise, however, of acting upon this maxim depends a good deal on what the gift horse is like. If it is obviously only fit for the knacker's yard there need not be much delicacy about looking at its teeth…So with many of the gifts bestowed upon the ratepayers.
(Liverpool Review 29 May 1886, 10)

Contrary to popular belief, the majority of real estate currently comprising public parks across Britain was not donated by landowners, but rather was purchased by local authorities with monies loaned, donated, or raised via rates. In some instances, the sums paid were high, raising questions as to whether some landowners were exploiting the parks movement for personal gain. As a correspondent for The Liverpool Review reported during the proceedings of a Parliamentary committee in June 1890:

...the most interesting item in the evidence given by the city surveyor related to the gain which had come to Lord Sefton by the development of Sefton Park. The agricultural value of the land to Lord Sefton was £1350, but that fortunate nobleman received from the Liverpool Corporation the sum of £250,000. (Liberal Review, 28 June 1890, 9)

Philanthropy was clearly not universal among 19th-century landowners. Nevertheless, the donation of land for the creation or extension of public parks did occur in a number of ways over the past 170 years. In some instances, it took the form of a ‘discount’ on the price of land sold to corporations. Upon purchasing the Walness Estate for a public park, the Manchester committee negotiated a price of £250 an acre, “but with a concession of £350 upon every 23 acres, as a subscription to the public parks” (Manchester Times and Gazette, 26 July 1845). The benefit was debatable however, as this increased the size of estate that the committee could afford to acquire, but did not provide any monies to landscape or maintain it. In other instances, entire tracts of land were donated as an unsolicited gift and/or a means of disposing of a profitless liability. Frequently, the donation of land had been unanticipated by a local authority, its sub-committees and park managers, and unaccompanied by the endowment necessary to secure its future. One striking example occurred in 1926 when Wythenshawe Hall and Grounds were bought by Lord and Lady Simon and gifted to the people of Manchester. The land parcel was vast, but not accompanied by any endowment for maintenance and the Council was in no position politically to refuse such a high-profile donation. Escalating the financial pressure on many local authorities was the level of additional investment required to make the land suitable for public use. This was a recurrent problem across the country as landowners saw an opportunity to off-load agriculturally inferior fields and ditches in the name of philanthropy. Drainage, paths, in-filling, and fencing were often essential before any decorative landscaping could occur. Some resourceful councils filled ditches with ‘road sweepings’, combining the processes of park creation with landfill, but overall, the costs incurred by local authorities were high and unanticipated.

Transference of Existing Parks to Local Authorities
 

One of the most enduring myths about public parks is that they have always been in the hands of local authorities. This claim has been used as evidence by both sides of the privatisation debate, with those in favour of privatisation claiming that local authorities are responsible for creating an unsustainable model, and those against privatisation invoking historical precedent. In reality, although the vast majority of public parks in England have been in public hands for the greater part of their history and many were acquired or rescued by town councils years after they had been founded under other financial models. This is particularly the case for some of the earliest and most historically significant parks, many of which are listed on Historic England’s Register of Parks and Gardens. Parks created as a hybrid public park/private garden and subsidised by the sale of private properties whose owners were granted special access to the latter, were among the earliest to be created and the first to fail.

In defence of those earlier models, many were only introduced as a last resort when the powers necessary to enable local authorities to pay for land and maintain it for public use were not yet granted or when a local authority had declined to support a scheme. These early parks were ambitious and progressive for their time and without them, the large programme of park creation that followed may never have been realised. Nevertheless, as a model, they failed. As cities expanded, previously-wealthy neighbourhoods went into decline, revealing one of the important lessons for urban planners – that while wealth moves, parks stay put. In addition, rather than benefitting from tax revenues, as private companies, the trusts that ran these parks had to pay rates and taxes. By the end of the 19th century, foundering development companies and residents of formerly exclusive housing estates increasingly sought to offload their green spaces onto local councils. In most instances these ‘gifts’ came with no funds or endowments, their income having all but dried up decades earlier. Not only did local authorities rarely receive any cash sums along with these new financial liabilities, they also inherited the sites at a low ebb in their condition. This was often a direct consequence of demographic changes in the surrounding neighbourhood; the large detached villas that surrounded the parks were unaffordable for the new residents of the old suburbs of Toxteth in Liverpool or Didsbury in Manchester. Therefore, grand townhouses were subdivided into apartments and the rates afforded by their inhabitants never reached the high levels which their predecessors had paid towards park maintenance, either by way of subscription, donation, or property charges. Thus, local authorities were expected to improve and maintain derelict parks without the capital sums initially enjoyed by the companies that preceded them.

By the 1890s, successive legislation, such as the Open Spaces Act of 1887, had increased the rights of local authorities to raise the funds necessary to acquire and maintain land. This led to fewer private projects amid a growing expectation that local authorities would fund and manage parks. In such an environment, developers withdrew from park provision entirely, leaving local authorities with the combined burden of managing inherited sites and developing new parks simultaneously. By the end of the First World War, local authorities across the country found themselves obliged to receive a number of under-funded parks in various states of disrepair. In her substantial history of municipal parks, Hazel Conway identified 23 public parks which, by 1991, had passed into local authority control from private companies, trusts, and the royal estate (Conway, 1991, appendix C).

During the 20th century, significant national and global events prompted the transfer of private land into public hands, perhaps most importantly, the Second World War and the creation of the welfare state. The consensus politics of post-war Britain were arguably the closest British society came during the 20th century to restoring the 19th-century axiom of an urban civil society. Despite acute financial concerns that prompted the Chancellor of the Exchequer to issue an edict in October 1955 that local authorities should draw a halt to all non-essential expenditure, in the months immediately preceding this instruction, councils had been seeking land for new public green spaces (BCC 1/BO/1/1/32). Even under financial pressure and demand for social housing, there was great resistance against making permanent the temporary arrangement under which prefabs had been erected on parks. Thus, with few exceptions, in post-war Britain land continued to pass from private hands into public ownership. Even in more recent years, this process has continued. In Bristol the Council was initially reluctant to take on Stoke Park from the developers that had built houses on part of the former health authority estate. In the end, the Council conceded. However, the case demonstrates the ultimate reliance on local authorities as the funder and provider of last resort (Anon, 2015c).

Subscription

The term ‘subscription’ creates much confusion and is frequently misused. This is due in part to its having been applied to a variety of funding models for both public and private projects from the 18th century onwards. It can mean to simply put one’s name to a document to acknowledge support for, or a personal legal or financial obligation to, a cause. In this sense an individual or institution may be said to subscribe to a park or garden as a cause without providing or holding a financial stake in its creation or survival. Conversely, it might refer to a donation made altruistically, often for a specific project (Conway, 1991, 141–63) or a regular fee paid in exchange for an ongoing service. Subscription existed in Britain as a means of funding gardens at least as early as the mid-17th century (Fawcett, 1967, 382 and Corfield, 2008, 3). The model grew in popularity in the 18th century when the increasing size and influence of the urban middle class prompted demand for more civic and cultural services. With bank loans difficult to acquire and wealth diffused across the middle ranks of the population, subscription offered entrepreneurs a new way to raise capital, and speculators a way to invest modest sums. If the proposal succeeded then ‘subscribers’ held a stake in the business, making them de facto shareholders. In some instances, the earliest subscriptions were in the form of a tontine (an investment plan for raising capital), through which the entire asset eventually devolved to the last surviving investor. Subscription provided a means of supporting the founding and survival of a range of urban facilities, including private libraries, clubs, and gardens and often for charitable purposes. As the 19th century progressed, the term ‘subscription’ was used broadly and inclusively to refer to anything from vocal support to a substantial financial donation. It is important therefore, to exercise caution when using the term. As many types of ‘subscription’ fit within other, more specific categories of funding, the term is used here exclusively in reference to the regular payment of fee in return for an ongoing service.

Subscription fees can go some way to ensuring the medium-term financial security of sites beyond the initial laying out costs. However, history presents a mixed picture of the long-term implications or relying on annual renewals.

A number of contemporary organisations and historic gardens run modern subscription schemes including English Heritage, the National Trust, and Historic Royal Palaces. Today, such schemes are more commonly termed ‘memberships’, but they continue to operate on an annual subscription basis. As in the 18th century, subscription fees are expensive for many. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation’s (JRF) A Minimum Income Standard for the UK (MIS) asserts that in Britain in 2015, single people need to earn at least £17,100 a year before tax to achieve a MIS. Couples with two children need to earn at least £20,000 each. The MIS takes into account, ‘what you need in order to have the opportunities and choices necessary to participate in society’ and, as such, should potentially cover the cost of accessing and engaging with parks and green heritage (Hirsch for JRF, 2015, 8). However, even when the income level calculated by the Foundation is achieved, earners on such low, pre-tax incomes can find admission charges and annual family subscription fees such as £88/year unaffordable. In addition, as membership is typically renewed annually and paid from a household’s disposable income, subscriptions can decline during periods of economic recession. Thus, although the subscription model can aid mid-term planning on an annual basis, it does not guarantee long-term financial stability.

Taxation

We understand that Sir Robert Peel has expressed his readiness to obtain from Government a sum of money in aid of such a design…Unquestionably, for no purpose could a portion of the national funds be more appropriately applied than in providing for the health and recreation of the community. (Manchester Times and Gazette, 15 June 1844).

Taxation has been the most enduring means of funding public green spaces in Britain. However, in the early years of park provision it was far from an undisputed principle. Despite the optimism displayed by the Manchester men in 1844, and many like them across the country in the decades that followed, the British government has historically resisted calls to ring-fence funds from centrally collected taxation for the purposes of public green space. The exception is, arguably, national parks, the first of which were created in 1951. Since the Environment Act of 1995, National Park Authorities have been independent public bodies funded from central government. They also get some money from other sources such as the European Union and generate some income themselves however, the National Parks face their own financial and management challenges, and very different land management responsibilities. In addition, National Parks comprise natural landscapes, forests, and agricultural land, which places them in a qualitatively different category from public urban parks and designed landscapes.

The principal means through which national tax revenues have been channelled into public parks is via the funding of local government. The contraction of this funding stream from the 1970s onwards has left local authorities with few options but to draw more heavily from local tax revenues. Using local taxation to fund public parks was not welcomed universally in the 19th century. Between the 1840s and 1880s, debates were held in council chambers across Britain to consider arguments for and against funding green space through local rates. The advantages identified were the same as those appreciated today, such as equality of access, sustainability, and the civil contract between rate payers and government. Those who opposed taxation were frequently concerned that it was unjust to impose an entirely new financial burden on rate payers. In a meeting of the Tradesman’s Association of Wolverhampton in May 1875, Mr Denton argued for ‘Botanic Gardens, to which a working man could contribute his half guinea a year’, explaining that “he had no sympathy with this pampering of the working man at the cost of the large ratepayers” (Birmingham Daily Post, 26 May 1875, 7). This was not as hard-hearted as it might seem as, significantly, there were often far fewer rate payers than there were people willing and able to donate charitably:

The Town Clerk believes that by far the most equitable way would be for the ratepayers to contribute out of the rates. To this Mr Astle responded by pointing out that a much smaller proportion of the inhabitants would contribute under the rating than under the plan which he contemplated…There were in Wolverhampton, he said, 14,170 houses, and of these as many as 11,150 were tenements whose rates were paid by the landlord.
(Birmingham Daily Post, 14 June 1857, 8).

Of course, the landlords ultimately passed the cost onto their tenants and this was one reason why rates were eventually accepted as the main revenue stream for parks' long-term maintenance.

The argument that took place in Wolverhampton may well have been particularly extreme due to the social and commercial character of that town. As John Butland Smith notes, “The council elected in 1848 was slow to address questions of public health. Until the mid-1860s government was controlled by manufacturing interests and by the resistance of ratepayers to accept the cost of municipal improvement” (Smith, 2001, abstract). However, this regional specificity is important as it suggests that willingness to use rates as a funding stream for park provision was informed more by the culture and politics of the local authority, than by any objective economic rationale.

Early discussions in council chambers across the country also reveal a recurrent concern that residents of neighbouring towns might use facilities to which they themselves did not contributed financially. In August, 1845, a meeting of Manchester Town Council heard one member ask how it was ‘that the Town Council of Manchester was to be at all the expense of keeping the parks in repair when the people of Salford were to partake of the benefit?’ (Manchester Times and Gazette, 9 August 1845). Echoes of this argument recur in contemporary debates. In 2011, a spokesperson for Wandsworth Council expressed a similar sentiment in relation to a local playground, asking: ‘Why should Wandsworth taxpayers subsidise children from other boroughs?’ (The Guardian, 12 May 2011). Questions about the burden placed on local authorities are also asked when, by accident of history, a ‘destination park’ falls within a local authority’s jurisdiction, for example see: Sydney Gardens, Bath; Hampstead Heath; Derby Arboretum; and the Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park, Stratford. The recurrence of this concern about taxation and use reveals a blind spot on the part of local and national government about the role of public parks as tourist attractions. From elaborate winter gardens to robust playgrounds, public parks bring much needed income to British towns and cities both particularly via food outlets, concerts, and car parking revenues, and more generally by making the town a more aesthetically appealing destination as evidenced by the array of parks and gardens depicted on local authority websites and publicity material. Yet, the economic benefits of high quality parks continue to be ignored.

Despite initial reservations, from the late 1860s onwards most local authorities had acquired the requisite powers to fund the acquisition and maintenance of parks. For those councils who did not yet have that facility, Part IV of the Public Health Act of 1875 provided both the right and the obligation:

Any [local authority] may purchase or take on lease lay out plant improve and maintain lands for the purpose of being used as public walks or pleasure grounds, and may support or contribute to the support of public walks or pleasure grounds provided by any person whomsoever.
(Public Health Act, 1875, 164).

The result was that, for the next hundred years, local tax revenues made up the largest portion of park budgets.

While most people interviewed in the course of this research acknowledged that there was no ‘golden age’ of public park provision in Britain, there is widespread acknowledgement that 1875 signalled a significant upturn in the fortunes of public parks. Although many town councils found themselves funding a larger and more expensive green space portfolio than anticipated, for decades the accounts submitted by parks and gardens committees were paid in full by Town Clerks. There is nevertheless, one caveat to the general success of the taxation model in the late 19th century, which is that sourcing funding democratically through taxation did not necessarily mean that expenditure adhered to the same principle. Parks located in wealthy neighbourhoods have often attracted a disproportionate level of investment. This inequality was identified and attacked in a scathing report that appeared in the Liberal Review in October 1879. In that article, the correspondent remarked that ‘one class is being benefited at the expense of the whole community…it is profoundly unsatisfactory that the Committee should want to spend on the park used by the few twice as much as they ask for two parks used by the many’ (Liberal Review, 4 Oct 1879, 11). In that instance, public outcry did not halt the disparity in expenditure, and nine years later, complaints of preferential spending practices were still being made in 1888 (Liverpool Citizen, 11 July 1888, 3-4).

In the 20th century, increasing pressures on council services began to encroach on council funds previously earmarked for parks. However, between the 1940s and 1960s many local authorities still continued to improve and often expand their parks and provide new facilities within them, such as open air dancing and carnivals (BCC 1/BO/1/1/32, minutes: 16451, 16725, 16774, 16783). In the late 1940s, temporary bandstands were constructed in parks and commons across London in order to host concerts that would raise both public moral and revenue (See Tooting Common and Streatham Common, 1947). Many local authorities endeavoured to repair or replace facilities badly damaged by enemy bombing. Although particular events were part-subsidised by the sale of tickets or off-set by revenues created elsewhere in the park, there remained a commitment to fund public parks from the public purse. The lack of any grandstanding about this arrangement should not be taken as evidence of indifference on the part of local authorities, but rather as testament to the absolute and unchallenged assumption that they would continue to fund public services through taxation. Notwithstanding this commitment, by the late 1960s the unspoken covenant was under stress and the Bains Report of 1972 on The New Local Authorities: Management and Structure was to prove catastrophic for Britain’s public parks.

One consequence of the Bains Report was that local authorities lost the capacity to invest significant sums of tax revenues in public parks and this fall in funds occurred in tandem with a fracturing of the departments themselves. Consequently, any opportunity to challenge these cuts, or to mitigate the worst of their impacts, was choked by the successive restructuring of local authorities that occurred from the 1970s onwards, and which has seen responsibility for parks provision shift from parks committees to department of leisure or planning (Layton-Jones for Historic England, 2014, 61). New local authority leisure facilities such as sports centres and country parks (Countryside Act 1968) added to the strains.

Since the 1990s there has been a growing awareness of the unsustainability of parks services’ budgets. In 2006, the National Audit Office’s report for the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister acknowledged that:

Mainstream expenditure by local authorities on upkeep required to sustain improvement over the longer term has increased, although not at the rate of increases spent on other public services. (NAO, 2006, 6)

Similarly, in 1999 the Select Committee on Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs recommended that local councils be enabled to ‘raise a larger proportion of their own revenues rather than depending on Government grants’ and went on to insist that should the Government be ‘determined not to increase local fundraising powers, when determining grants to local authorities it must take more account of the number of size of public parks that have to be maintained’ (Select Committee on Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs, 1999, para. 117). The recommendation was not taken up.

For much of their custodianship of public parks, local authorities have not ring- fenced a specific percentage of tax revenue for parks. In 2008, the opportunity for local authorities to increase their expenditure on parks was lost, potentially forever. During the financial crisis, demands on statutory local services, such as emergency housing, increased. Without any budgetary protection in place for their green spaces, many local authorities have sought to retreat from their historical role in public park provision altogether. The Policy Exchange found that ‘urban local authority spending on open spaces in England has decreased by 10.5 per cent between 2010/11 and 2012/13. The greatest reductions were in the north-east (38.7 per cent) and the smallest reductions were in the southeast (3.4 per cent)’ (Drayson, 2013, 7). Outsourcing is increasingly becoming the norm, and the remains of in-house park departments are being dismantled.

Increases to local taxation that might have counteracted this decline were made almost impossible as, in 2010, it became government policy to encourage a freeze on council tax. The Localism Act of 2011 introduced the Council Tax Referendum Principles, which stipulate the grounds on which Council Taxes could be raised. This restriction comes after over two decades of budget cuts to parks which, as a non-statutory service, have suffered disproportionately (GreenSpace, 2001, pp 4.19–4.22). It would seem that 140 years after the Public Health Act of 1875, we are right back where we started.

In terms of case studies, every public park in England has, at some point in its history, benefitted from public expenditure and recent decline in this revenue stream has been universal. Far rarer are examples of recent innovations in raising funding via taxation mechanisms. Although Drayson identified a promising model in the form of Park Improvement Districts [PIDs], such systems remain untested in the UK.

The Olympic site is not the only location where such a special levy has been applied to support park provision. Another notable example is the Lee Valley Park, managed by the Lee Valley Regional Park Authority (LVRPA). The levy for this regional park is applied to residents across every London borough as well residents in Essex and Hertfordshire and equates to approximately £1 per household (Lee Valley Regional Park Authority, 2015). The Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) has proposed a similar model to cover the costs of London’s largest public parks. However, the LVRPA levy is unpopular among the boroughs and counties furthest from the park. This is perhaps not surprising when residents of Hillingdon in West London live over 20 miles from the park and like every other local authority have seen funding to their own local parks cut over recent years.

Grants

Against a backdrop of falling budgets, over the past two decades local authorities have come to rely increasingly on grants and, to a lesser extent, donations to support public park provision. Since 1996, the HLF (and latterly in partnership with Big Lottery) has emerged as one, and increasingly the only, significant source of large project grants for public parks offering ‘unprecedented levels of potential grant funding…for cash-strapped local authorities’ (Longstaffe-Gowan, 2012, 276). Within 10 years of the birth of the HLF’s Urban Parks Programme over 250 parks had benefitted and, as Hazel Conway notes, ‘this sector of the HLF’s work has been by far the most popular of its initiatives’ (Conway, 2009, 4). As one respondent put it, ‘We would be dead in the water without them…£650 million investment? Who else would have?’ (Paul Rabbitts in consultation, 2015). In fact, when the grants awarded to green space by HLF and Big Lottery Fund are combined they amount to over £800m in just under 20 years. Although the investment inevitably focuses on capital projects lasting no more than five years, applicants are required to focus on people and community outcomes too such as learning, volunteering, skills and engaging new and wider community participation. The HLF also allowed a commitment to increasing the future revenue budgets to be capitalised as partnership funding. Some projects allowed 10 years of increased revenue spend and many capital works took longer than five years. In addition HLF requires a 10 year management and maintenance plan which must be adopted by the council. Thus, requirements laid down in the contracts between the HLF and recipients go some way to protecting the future of the parks concerned. For example, any change or ownership or detrimental change to the landscape within 25 years of receipt of the grant could constitute a breach of contract, which in itself carries significant financial implications for the grantee. Nevertheless, as local authorities come under increasing pressure to increase revenue from their estate assets, the protection afforded by the HLF contract is increasingly strained and likely to test its efficacy.

However welcome the HLF's programmes remain, there is an issue about the public parks most at risk from non-investment, fail to come forward as the local authorities are struggling with their parks portfolio and priorities. To date HLF has funded over 700 parks and green spaces however the Public Park Assessment report in 2001 estimated there were in the order of 2,500 sites of national and local historic importance and a hundred times more recreational green spaces. Successful major schemes require detailed planning and long term commitment and some parks teams simply don't have the leadership and resources to make the most of grant schemes. Waiting until the condition of an asset deteriorates to the point of requiring large-scale restoration and capital investment leads to a risk of loss of the historic fabric.

Concerns have also been aired that the HLF approach necessarily focus attention and financial resources intensively on one specific park, often at the cost of other sites. The impact can potentially continue after a site has been restored, as the commitment to maintain the HLF-funded park continues, even when local authority budgets fall. In such a situation, local authorities have little choice but to channel their meagre resources at sites which have already benefitted from investment, neglecting other sites and so creating greater disparity in park quality: ‘parks less eligible for lottery funding may once again be struggling to provide even minimal grounds maintenance’ (Worpole, 2012, 6). The original aspiration was that each town would have at least one brilliant example to set a benchmark for other local communities to aspire to and to some extent this was effective until the crash of 2008. However, today the situation has changed significantly. While grants can provide crucial funding for a few specific sites, competition does not have a neutral impact on the wider sector. Rather it is perhaps indicative a ‘Darwinian battle for dwindling resources, in which many communities, without doubt the poorer, will
see their park enter into a spiral of decline’ (Lambert, 2014, 44). The parks sector has become dependent on Lottery funding and any future radical shifts could further threaten parks.

Of course, the HLF and Big Lottery Fund are not the only grant-awarding body to have had a significant impact on public green space. Other funding bodies, such as the European Regional Development Fund, Landfill Tax and regeneration funds have also supported green space renewal. Nevertheless, all these funds operate a system of competition and so display comparable advantages and weaknesses as funding models.

Loans
 

No matter which funding model is adopted, there will be periods during which those responsible for park provision need to obtain additional sums on a short-term basis. As outlined below, endowments that rely upon investments, either in the form of property or the stock market, are inevitably exposed to the same degree of risk as other speculators. Economic downturns are also accompanied by reductions in tax revenues, impacting upon local authorities and national government alike, while charitable donations can fall when there is less disposable income in circulation. Even the most successful models require the ability to borrow funds for the purposes of capital investment or short-term crisis management. There is considerable historical precedent for this provision. Since 1793, the Public Works Loan Board (PWLB) has provided loans to local authorities across Britain for the purposes of funding capital projects and as a lender of last resort. Since 2002 it has been managed as part of the UK Debt Management Office. For cities unable or unwilling to rely on philanthropy or rates to fund capital investment in parks, loans present a means of founding key, strategic sites.

Speculative Development
 

The residential square is a uniquely English device, one that has been admired since its inception in the mid-17th century (English Heritage, 2000).

Housing developments have historically been one of the most popular motivations and means for creating substantial urban parks. From the 1840s to the 1880s, a number of parks were purchased and laid out that were funded, in part, through the sale and development of plots of land around their periphery. In the early years, the principle was to emulate the country house estate, providing each household with a view across formal gardens and wider ‘parkland’ beyond. In order to raise the large sums demanded by the grand landscaping schemes of Joseph Paxton and his followers, the real estate needed to attract the wealthiest of a city’s inhabitants. Original housing schemes therefore typically comprised aspirational, white stucco villas and terraces of fine ashlar stone townhouses.

The flaw in this model is immediately apparent when the social and philanthropic motivations for creating parks are set against the business model used to acquire, landscape, and maintain them. While residents might pay handsomely for large dwellings in order to escape the overpopulated city to a socially-exclusive suburb, the parks they subsidised and overlooked were supposedly created for the benefit of the very people they sought to escape. Relying upon an appetite for social exclusivity as a means of funding socially-progressive initiatives such as public parks was always going to prove problematic. The consequences of this anachronism were apparent as early as 1841 when residents of Regent’s Park in London were notified that large portions of the park were to be ‘thrown open’ to the wider population. The reality, as one letter to the editor of the Morning Chronicle explained, is that exclusivity cannot be guaranteed in perpetuity:

In building in a public park a man takes his chances of all against which he does not make an express stipulation, and whatever is not bargained for is not gained. (Morning Chronicle, 24 April 1841).

Conversely, sites that were actively advertised as being for the working classes often failed to attract interest from builders or residents, leaving a financial shortfall in the park accounts.

The contradictory aspirations for social exclusivity on the part of residents and social inclusivity on the part of park users dictate that one side of the bargain will always emerge dissatisfied and this conflict is apparent in many historical developments.

Sefton Park is situated far from the centre of the population. Those who are most in need of a park reside at least four or five miles away from it. The parks at Stanley are more accessible, and are more calculated to be of real benefit to the mass of the population…Aristocratic Liverpool has not, however, condescended to adopt them as places of residence (Liberal Review, 4 Oct 1879, 11).

In recent years, the provision of landscaped green space, or at least open space has become a pre-requisite for any substantial development. This has been delivered either directly by the developer or indirectly by the allocation of Section 106 (Town and County Planning Act 1990) planning obligations money by the local authority (see below). The results have been mixed and evaluations of individual sites vary between observers. However, it is important to acknowledge that such provision of green space differs in two crucial ways from the large public park schemes of the 19th century. Firstly, the balance of green space to housing or commercial use has been reversed, with the greatest portion of land now given over to development rather than park; and secondly, the types of spaces created tend to reflect the commercial objectives of property developers and management companies, rather than the social and cultural needs of the wider public. Although broadly antithetical to the principles of the public parks movement, evidence of the explicit prioritisation of private profit over public benefit can be found in one particular category of historic urban green space that survives today: the London garden square.

The large garden squares of London, epitomised most famously by those laid out on the Bedford and Grosvenor Estates in the 18th century, testify to the financial premium afforded historically to high quality green spaces by residents and consequently, property developers. Large residential schemes, such as the Grosvenor, Hanover, Cavendish, and Smith Squares (initiated 1720-25) and Bedford Square (laid out 1775-1783) were designed to capitalised directly on the social and environmental benefits of urban green space (McKellar, 2013, 170). The appeal of the garden square reflected the pre-existing belief that Westminster was a healthier area than the city of London, by virtue of the clean air that blew across Hyde Park. Although residents may not purchase that site, they could own their personal slice of health and well-being via a share of a garden square to which only residents had access. In Hanoverian London, these private green spaces were not merely a bonus for purchasers, but were at the heart of the developments’ appeal. Residents were prepared to pay a significant premium for a property that came with a key to the gardens. It is difficult to assess the exact level of premium that the garden squares added to property values as even neighbouring streets whose residents had no access to the gardens benefitted from their proximity to the open space. However, exclusivity of access was clearly important as evidence by the progressive privatisation of formerly public squares, such as St. James’s Square, from the 1720s onwards. For much of the 18th and early 19th centuries, the commercial model of the garden squares seemed relatively successful. With the exception of the property crashes that affected the entire market, the London Squares succeeded in attracting residents who, if not always from the most elite social classes, were able to afford the cost of maintaining the properties and the garden squares attached. However, notwithstanding their success and appeal in the early years, London squares have not been without their own challenges, both in terms of funding and management. By the end of the 19th century, the fashionable London set had shifted westwards and Bloomsbury in particular entered a period of relative decline. The conclusion of leaseholds led to some redevelopment and grand houses were increasingly sub-divided into flats. Just as occurred in the formerly prestigious developments associated with large public parks, the new residents who enjoyed more modest incomes could not, or were not prepared to pay the rising costs necessary to maintain the gardens. While some private gardens passed into public ownership, others entered a period of decline and became either romantic and wild or dangerous and overgrown depending upon the viewer’s predisposition. As with public parks, the 1990s was a watershed for the squares as residents and campaigners sought to rescue and promote these urban oases. In 1995, the London Squares Conference resulted in the London Squares Day (now Open Garden Squares Weekend) and (the former) English Heritage’s Campaign for London Squares (Longstaffe-Gowan, 2012, 275–9). Thus, to a significant degree, and notwithstanding their early commercial success, the fortunes of the garden squares mirror significantly those of the public parks. Similarly, they remain as important to residents and visitors as their more accessible counterparts.

For all their shortfalls in terms of accessibility, even locked garden squares were, and remain, more beneficial to the wider community than gated developments and the courtyards concealed within. Although physically inaccessible to the wider public, their aesthetic and environmental benefits can be enjoyed by all. In addition, their function as nuclei around which housing developments were organised ensured a lower density of development and a level of cohesive planning previously unseen in the capital. The public may not have been able to enter the gardens, but these green spaces were at least integrated into the wider urban realm. Today the term ‘garden square’ is a popular phrase in planning applications. However, it is often used inaccurately. In the epilogue to his substantial study of the London Square, Todd Longstaffe-Gowan dismissing the appropriation of the nomenclature of these historic gardens by contemporary developers as a cynical attempt to capitalise further on the historic associations they invoke:

The blunt truth is that gated communities have little or nothing to do with London squares. If the modern squares we have examined are so called, it is only because their builders have appropriated the concept to capitalise on this ever popular, instantly recognisable and much admired ‘upper middle class perquisite’ as Anne Scott-James terms it. (Longstaffe-Gowan, 2012, 286)

In more open locations, new urban squares may be more accessible due to the lack of railings and locked doors. However, the recurrent use of defensive architecture, low-maintenance hard landscaping, and private security firms all indicate resistance to the principles of accessibility and flexibility that have underpinned park provision for over a century. As Susannah Charlton has argued, rather than serving the public, “landscapes planned as adjuncts to commercial development, or through competitions for a civic showpiece, militate against local distinctiveness and community involvement in, dare I say it, gardening public space” (Charlton, 2011, 5).

Notwithstanding the weaknesses of many new green spaces provided by commercial developers, the greatest challenge in using residential or commercial developments to raise funds for parks today is that this is almost impossible to achieve retrospectively. Revenues rely upon an increase in land values and that increase being realised by a developer. As land and historical housing stock on the periphery of existing parks has already been released into the private market, the only estate asset remaining is the park itself. Surrendering a portion of extant parkland for housing development compromises the park itself. Thus, if the spatial and environmental integrity of an historic park is to be retained, any development within its borders would need to be small. Given the necessarily limited size of any land parcels within parks, it is unclear whether the profit generated could ever present a viable means of supporting the remaining green space. A further risk to this model is that in the absence of budgetary ring fencing, the capital raised could, as has happened in the past, be simply absorbed back into the general local authority pot. There are various ways to avoid such an outcome, but the necessary structures would need to be in place before any such scheme is implemented.

Section 106 and Community Infrastructure Levy
 

Since the Town and Country Planning Act of 1990, the greatest opportunity for funding local parks and public green spaces via development has come in the form of Section 106 planning obligation contributions. Section 106 empowers local authorities to negotiate contributions from developers to support local infrastructure and improvements that may need additional support as a result of the development. The process can be undertaken either unilaterally or as part of a planning application. The Community Infrastructure Levy [CIL] was introduced in the Planning Act 2008 to enable local authorities to use development to deliver local infrastructure. In some instances, local authorities have been able to use Section 106 or CIL to provide much-needed injections of capital for park improvements. HLF’s State of UK Public Parks report says 90 per cent of local authorities have secured funding for parks from Section 106 and Community Infrastructure Levy [CIL] over the last three years. However, there is no guarantee that such funds money will be spent on green space provision and in times of budgetary crisis, parks must compete for this source of investment along with all other departments, such as education. It is predicted that funding could fall to 60 per cent or lower (HLF, 2014).

In some instances, parks managers have sought to anticipate the availability of future Section 106 funds and so have ready-prepared lists of priority works awaiting funding. One such example was Key Hill Cemetery, Birmingham where the gate piers were identified as a priority in anticipation of future Section 106 funds becoming available. This strategy is certainly desirable. However, in light of the recent and on-going reduction in the number of designated parks managers and conservation officers within local authorities, it is unlikely that many councils today have the resources to fund such pro-active planning. Nevertheless, Section 106 and the Community Infrastructure Levy remain important potential capital funding streams for many urban public parks and gardens.

Endowment
 

Endowments can constitute property, stocks, or a cash sum. Globally, endowments have been used to fund services ranging from higher education to hospitals. The model is particularly popular in the United States of America. In Britain in the 19th century, where endowments accompanied donations of land, these endowments were relatively small and were quickly spent at the laying out stage.

One of the main recommendations made by the 2014 Policy Exchange report was that All local authorities should conduct a review to determine whether endowments would be a suitable model for the sustainable funding of their existing greenspace’ (Drayson, 2014, 29). While this might be desirable, the sustainability of the model is only one side of the equation. More pressing is the improbability of any local authority having the ability to provide, or even contribute to, an endowment, let alone one large enough to completely remove reliance on taxation. The size of endowment required for even one town or city is enormous. Furthermore, an initial endowment, albeit large, cannot secure the financial future of a park in perpetuity.

Endowments must be invested, either in the parks themselves (see ‘revenue creation within parks’ below), or in other assets, such as property or the stock market. Such investments carry an attendant risk, but diversification can limit potential exposure. A diverse and large portfolio of assets used to support parks is essential for financial resilience. Therefore, the endowment model is more reliable when economies of scale can be exploited. Endowments are potentially more vulnerable when liabilities and assets are limited to only a few sites and investments. Given the current trend towards a fragmentation of the sector, and pressure to transfer assets to small, individual communities, local authorities may need to act sooner rather than later if they wish to adopt this model. In addition, those charged with managing an endowment must have a broad level of skills and considerable experience in financial management. This necessary emphasis on finance and asset management can introduce new risks as the underlying principles of green space provision can become occluded by financial objectives. Balancing civic and ethical principles with financial practicalities remains an ongoing challenge for trustees.

The National Trust charity has considerable experienced with endowments and since 1976 has used their so called ‘Chorley Formula’ to work out endowments – both revenue and capital – needed for every new property taken into its care.  Some of the costs are huge. The Trust contributed to the Nesta, HLF and the Big Lottery on the Rethinking Parks programme with a project on potential endowment models for public parks. Examples of two notable historical endowments are given below.

Recent innovations, such as the HLF’s Catalyst Match Funding for endowments give rise to some hope that this model could be extended beyond the few existing cases in the UK. However, the limited size of the scheme and the grants it can award make it viable only for specific sites. The two successful historic models adopted a large greenspace portfolio and the benefits of economies of scale in financial management and site management costs. To date even the most long-standing trusts charged with managing public parks has just two decades of experience and as such, the long-term viability of the model is untested.

Revenue Creation within Parks

...one thing is clear – there is no question – parks can never be self-financing... (Simon O’Brien quoted in the Liverpool Echo, 28 June 2015).

This categorical statement, made by Simon O’Brien, Chair of the Liverpool Green Strategy Group is a blunt, but realistic assessment of the revenue-creating capacity of public green spaces. Yet, despite the unlikelihood that parks could ever be entirely self-financing, particularly if we are to respect their value as antidotes to the commercial landscape of the wider city, there are a range of ways in which they can subsidise their own maintenance costs. 

This section looks at:

• Agricultural and horticulture
• Ticketed events
• Weddings and private events
• Entrance fees
• Cafés, concessions, and car parking
• Sale of park buildings.

Agricultural and Horticultural Production

Parks have a peculiar advantage over other public assets; they can provide grass, timber, and marketable plant stocks without interrupting public access, aesthetic appeal, or integrity of design. With modification and some limitations imposed on access, they can also support livestock and market gardening. At some point in their history, every large conurbation in the United Kingdom permitted animals to be grazed on some of their parks. The practice had two advantages as it reduced the costs of mowing large greenswards, and provided income from the farmers who sought pasture land for their animals relatively close to the town centre. Changes to the farming industry, animal welfare and food markets rule out the viability of relying on such activities as a sustainable income strand for urban parks today. However, in a limited number of locations, such as the Newcastle town moors, livestock have remained a continuous presence (www.freemenofnewcastle.org/themoor.html ). In other areas, livestock have been re-introduced on some urban commons and open spaces over the last 30 years to reinstate conservation grazing. The aims are biodiversity enhancement rather than meat or wool production.

In terms of horticulture and market gardening, in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, council-owned nurseries grew their own annual bedding plants for the parks, selling excess stock on the open market, and providing floral displays for civic events.

During the World Wars of the 20th century, many large parks were famously turned over to food production. In the main, this took the form of small-scale individual allotments, although a profit could still be realised. For example, in Birmingham in 1941, tomatoes grown on war-time allotments were sold commercially. On rare occasions, entire greenswards were cultivated with commercial crops, such as occurred at Calderstones Park in Liverpool in 1917 (Layton-Jones and Lee, 2008, 63). However, such agricultural production was always temporary. By the 1980s, most park planting stock could be sourced more cheaply from commercial suppliers leading to the closure of many council nurseries. However, food and plant production is so mechanised today that the sort of small-scale enterprises of the past would not be viable. Although such systems can work as a community asset, they are unlikely to make a meaningful financial contribution to park funding. Indeed community run projects in horticulture are usually grant-aided in themselves, as exemplified by Community Greenhouses project in Brockwell Park, Lambeth.

Ticketed Events

Concerts, sporting events, festivals, and fairs, have been a common feature of the park year in many municipal and estate parks since the early 19th century. Sunday afternoon brass band performances, charity fairs, and pageants have brought new visitors into parks. In most cases access was, and remains, free. However, there is also evidence of local authorities considering the implications of ticketed events as early as the 1870s. While ticketed events were never intended nor advocated by park creators, the almost immediate funding crisis faced by many park providers in the 19th century meant that debates about how to introduce fee-paying events were quick to emerge.

Conflict can arise from the need to restrict public access when such events occur and the public can consequently feel aggrieved at being excluded from a civic facility for which they have already paid via taxation. In addition, the arrival of amplification and floodlighting can impact residents far beyond the parameters of the park. In 2012, in response to new regulations imposed by Westminster City Council, the Royal Parks Agency (a Non-Departmental Government Body) introduced more stringent noise restrictions and an earlier curfew to mitigate the impact of music concerts on residential properties nearby. In 2013 they reoriented the stage at Hyde Park to enable higher noise levels to be achieved without a detrimental impact on the surrounding area. Balancing the financial and social impact of such events clearly remains a delicate process. Nevertheless, the profitability of hosting ticketed events encourages park managers to pursue this model on an ever-more ambitious scale. Victoria Park in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets is now under the management of the local authority’s events team. Attempts to reinvent parks as large music venues or stadia often ignore their distinctive character and value as assets in their own right. The impact upon the landscape of successive events, especially on the grass, need to be considered and the costs of repair and reinstatement also need to be factored into the balance sheet.

Weddings and Private Events

As relatively high-value heritage assets within parks, with similarly high associated maintenance costs, bandstands, pavilions and glasshouses can benefit significantly from wedding and private event revenues. High Peak Borough Council’s Pavilion Gardens, Buxton is licensed for civil weddings and brings in revenue from hosting both the services themselves and the receptions on the Don Redfern Memorial Bandstand and in the Victorian Winter Garden Conservatory. Both venues can be hired for £500 and additional services, such as catering, bring in substantial sums (www.paviliongardens.co.uk). Sheffield City Council’s Weston Park has similarly licenced its distinctive bandstand for wedding ceremonies and blessings. Venue hire charges range from £635 to £895 per day (www.sheffield.gov.uk). In Liverpool, both Sefton Park Palm House and the renamed Isla Gladstone Conservatory at Stanley Park are both licensed for weddings (www.palmhouse.org.uk) and (www.theislagladstone.co.uk/weddings). At Sefton Park, the venue is managed by the Sefton Park Palm House Preservation Trust, while at Stanley Park it has been outsourced to a contractor. However, there are weaknesses in the model. Sefton Park Palm House required a massive HLF capital grant to get it into a condition that enabled it to be hired out and no such scheme can succeed without at least some initial investment. Clearly, hosting relatively expensive events, such as weddings, presents a considerable financial opportunity for raising revenue within parks. As with ticketed events, there are some challenges in permitting private events in public parks. One of the recurrent problems is that clients usually demand exclusive use of the site for their event, leading to the exclusion of the wider public. This can create friction with local communities, as well as potentially contravening the conditions under which such facilities were originally gifted. To be successful and sustainable, the impact of such events on public access must be managed carefully. In addition, revenues need to be ring fenced to ensure that profits created within the park contribute to the survival and quality of the site. This can be relatively straightforward if the venue is managed by a Trust or the Council itself. However, where it has been outsourced, as in the case of Stanley Park, it can be more challenging to ensure that the park benefits directly from any increase in profits.

Entrance Fees
 

There is something inconsistent in the rules of an institution which, professing to be established for the enlightenment of our fellow-creatures, is yet forbidden ground to those who most require a participation in its refining influence…a love of power and exclusiveness, the offspring of an ill-disguised selfishness, is too much mingled with our various schools of commerce, literary, and even social life (Heartwell on Manchester’s Botanic Gardens, 1842, 164).

The controversy that surrounds ticketed and private events in parks is exceeded in intensity by only one other model of funding: the entrance fee. As with ticketed events, there is a considerable historical record relating to the charging of a fee for access to green space. However, revealingly, none of the historical examples relate to publicly owned green space and all the models ultimately failed financially.

Entrance fees were one of the earliest means of raising funds for specific parks and gardens. Throughout the English urban renaissance of the 18th century, an array of provincial pleasure gardens, botanic gardens, and zoological gardens owed their establishment to a combination of subscribers and ‘on the door’ tickets (see ‘subscription’ above). In the years prior to the public parks movement, urban elites funded these relatively small-scale facilities on an ‘associational basis’ and, in general, they remained inaccessible to the masses (Clark and Houston, 2000, 587). By the 1830s, the financial challenges of sustaining such socially-exclusive gardens were beginning to bite as the urban elite evolved into the more geographically diffuse suburban middle class. At the same time, pollution levels in town centres made sustaining exotic specimens increasingly difficult. The model was also under attack from social reformers who saw them as bastions of social inequality. As Horace Heartwell’s quotation above demonstrates, the exclusivity of green spaces that commanded an entrance fee was increasingly recognised as counter-intuitive.

By the 1860s, entrance fees had disappeared from most provincial green spaces. The creation of public parks meant that even the few surviving botanic gardens could not attract enough visitors when competing against free municipal facilities. However, at the same time that these smaller sites were passing into public hands, there were new experiments in ticketed parks; this time on a vast scale.

The business case for imposing an entry fee is rarely convincing. The staffing levels required in addition to maintaining a higher standard of park in order to attract visitors makes the economics questionable. In addition, historically, the model has failed, surviving longest only where the site was large in size and offered a unique experience to visitors.

Cafés, Concessions, and Car Parking
 

In many instances, the leasing of concessions within parks for the provision of refreshment and special activities, such as boating or tennis, provided a valuable revenue stream with which to subsidise park maintenance. Although designers may have given little consideration to who ran the facilities they designed, or what level of revenue could be raised, councillors were increasingly mindful of the financial advantages of pay-per-use facilities. In the case of first generation parks, beer stands and sports facilities tended to be later additions, but by the 20th century, their potential was widely recognised. In Stanley Park in Blackpool (opened 1926), Thomas Mawson and Sons' 1922 plan for the site incorporated a golf course. Designed by Colt and Mackenzie, it was considered a ‘useful source of revenue for the park’ (English Heritage, 2010, Register of Parks and Gardens). In 1937, a café was erected at the centre of the park, providing additional revenue to subsidise the upkeep of the relatively new park.

Following the municipalisation of Tooting Common in the mid-1870s, London County Council introduced a succession of facilities to both provide services to visitors and raise revenues. In 1898 a contract was approved for the provision of a refreshment house on the Common. Built in the fashionable style of English vernacular influenced by the Arts and Crafts movement in 1906, the café was expected to cover its £328 cost and realise a profit (LMA, LCC/CO/CON/02/2081). The café still stands. It is a valued gathering point for visitors and is leased to a family-run business.

In other instances, revenue-raising attractions were intentionally temporary. Long after Crystal Palace Park had abandoned the entrance fee, the site continued to demand extensive investment. The solution in the early decades of the 20th century was the introduction of temporary fair grounds and festivals. Privately-run rides such as Hiram Maxim’s ‘Flying Machine’, a ‘Joy Wheel’, a hall of mirrors, a helter-skelter, a roller coaster known as the ‘Topsy-Turvy’, and a log flume dubbed ‘The Human Laundry’ provided an important stream of revenue. (The Penny Illustrated Paper and Illustrated Times, 11 August 1906, 91 and Layton-Jones, 2013).

Such schemes have proved financially successful, if sometimes divisive among park users. Importantly, in all cases, their success relied upon the monies raised being invested in the sites concerned, not least because by hosting such features, the park incurred additional pressures from increased use. By the early 2000s, such ‘ring-fencing’ of revenues was no longer universal.

For both Tooting Common and Crystal Palace Park, along with numerous urban and country parks across the United Kingdom, the later 20th century saw car parking introduced onto the sites. Although many car parks were initially free, local authorities feeling the strain of budget cuts are increasingly introducing parking fees. Some car parks have grown to be monopolised by commuters and shoppers. In Nottingham the car park in the historic Forest Recreation Ground has 972 parking spaces for the city’s Park and Ride Scheme. The criteria for Country Park status has always required free access. These parks were always intended to be ‘readily accessible for motor vehicles and pedestrians’ (Countryside Commission, 1969 Policy on Country Parks and Picnic Sites) and car parking charges were introduced early on at some parks. New charging schemes or charges increased to help support the management of sites.

Sale of Park Buildings

Park lodges are key features marking the entrance to the parks and the park system, and adding to the design concept, and often the local housing too. As Hazel Conway and David Lambert have explained, with the introduction of Compulsory Competitive Tendering [CCT] in 1988, park keepers were no longer required and the lodges became redundant (Lambert, 2005, 13; Lambert and Conway and Lambert, 1993, 8). Some were sold, and more were sold ten years later for private use or under the right-to buy 1992 legislation which enable local authorities to retain receipts from the sale of redundant assets for capital purposes (Select Committee 1998–9). By the turn of the century, nearly a quarter of all park lodges had been lost to use (Public Park Assessment, 2001). A decade on, more lodges are up for sale. While the sale of such assets can raise revenue in the short term, it cannot represent a sustainable source of revenue for parks. Furthermore, covenants placed on gifted land can present a challenge if not absolute barrier to the disposal of lodges and other park structures (Barnet Borough Council, 2014).

PART THREE: MANAGEMENT MODELS

Trusts and Not-for-Profit Companies

Hounslow's parks…have suffered from below-average levels of public satisfaction, after a decade of management by a not-for-profit organisation.
(Ibrahim, 2008).

Long-term custodianship of green spaces enables essential long-term strategic planning and can immunise parks from the rapid and unpredictable changes created by the parliamentary cycle. However, it also presents new challenges and conflicts and this can be compounded when the portfolio must also deliver an on-going financial return. As David Foster acknowledges, this means that park managers must sometimes choose “between the needs and wishes of people today and those of future generations” (The Parks Trust, 2013, 3). Well-funded trusts and, to a lesser extent, Community Interest Companies [CiCs] enjoy the luxury of being able to plan beyond the present parliamentary cycle. However, ironically, this political autonomy relies on a degree of fiscal independence that is unattainable for many sites without the financial as well as ideological support of government. As a result, the number of parks that are, or that could be realistically funded in this manner is small. It is also only fair to surmise that the autonomy that protects a trust from the impact of transient political policies, also grants it a degree of impunity in the face of public opposition to particular schemes and decisions. While some trusts may choose to listen to the public and prioritise access and accountability, the trust model delivers considerable power to trustees to set their own priorities and principles; there is no guarantee that they will always be in the public interest.

Recent ‘Teckal’ procurement regulation exemptions offer local authorities the means of adopting an ‘arm’s length’ management of public parks. However Hounslow’s experience suggests the need for caution when devolving responsibility for public park provision. In March 2007, The Centre for Public Scrutiny was deeply critical of Hounslow Community Initiatives Partnership [CIP] and the council’s review of leisure and cultural services expressed wide ranging concerns about “CIP governance, its financial systems, and the nature and content of the Authority’s agreement with CIP” (London Borough of Hounslow, 2007, 4). One of the recommendations made in the council's report published in April 2007 was that the council put in place contingency plans to prepare to “take the services, or parts of the services back in house” – a clear repetition of the historical precedent (London Borough of Hounslow, 2007, 6).

The CIP had been set up in 1998 to deliver leisure services for Hounslow Council. It was part-funded by the Council but was also charged with gaining funding from external contracts and in 2007 had a gross turnover of more than £18 million. Nevertheless, its management of the leisure services contracts for Hounslow resulted in worryingly low levels of public satisfaction as well as financial deficit. The Hounslow CIP case suggests that not-for-profit models are neither immune, nor especially protected from the challenges that plague the public and private sectors.

Trusts are currently a popular subject among those seeking alternatives to in-house park management by local authorities. The regeneration instigated by a number of high-profile American parks managed by trusts has attracted the attention of parks users and managers alike. New York's Central Park Conservancy (founded 1980) has become the poster park for the trust model, although in this instance, the City retains overall control and policy responsibility for the site. Through a combination of public funds and private donations, Central Park evolved an apparently sustainable model for funding public space and retaining public oversight. One reason for the appeal of the trust model in the current socio-economic climate is that they operate in a relatively neutral no-man’s-land between private and public ownership. Land can be leased to a trust, while the freehold is retained by the local authority.

Alternatively, as in the case of Central Park, New York, a trust may be contracted to manage the park through a series of shorter-term contracts. Given the relatively short history of public space trusts in Britain, the historical record provides little help in evaluating the long-term viability of the trust model. In addition, cities with large, successful conservancy groups, like New York, are universally rich cities. In Britain, the Localism Act of 2011 demonstrated parliamentary support for the transferal of a range of public services and assets into the hands of charitable trusts and other owners. Yet, in reality, very few such transfers have so far been accomplished.

One of the reasons for this lack of uptake is the financial reality of acquiring and managing substantial parks and gardens. Parks are complex and multi-functional landscapes, often combining heritage assets with fragile ecosystems, contemporary sporting facilities, and horticulture. Each of these has an attendant cost and it is naïve to believe that enhancing any or all of these elements can be achieved without substantial financial investment. In fact, as the Central Park example demonstrates, the annual investment demanded by a restored and successful park can be enormous.

As David Lambert predicted in 2010:

A friends group may indeed agree to take over the running of a park, with a budget or endowment from the Council, but will soon find that the cost of running the park exceeds the allowance from the Council. It’s bound to because the Council itself would struggle to maintain the park on the money that is likely to be available, and there is no extra. So they will either bow out or be encouraged to turn to private contractors to deliver…Whoever runs the park, the money required to do so well remains the same – shifting the bill to volunteers or trusts will not change that irreducible fact.
(Lambert, 2010, 42–43).

Even when funds are available, the powers afforded to a trust can potentially compromise the public status of the green space. The unique status of the National Trust, by which it holds property privately, but cannot dispose of any so-called ‘inalienable’ land without permission from Parliament, arguably both protects and compromises the status of green space within its portfolio. As Patrick Wright observed in 1985, “in some respects this national public interest occupies a position analogous to that of the shareholder in an ordinary limited company. One doesn’t have to take a completely negative view of the National Trust to see that the inalienability of the Trust's property can be regarded (and also staged) as a vindication of property relations…which demonstrates how private property simply is in the national public interest” (Wright, 1985, 47). This question of public interest continues to be a stubborn weakness of the trust model and one of the most recurrent criticisms levelled at even relatively successful examples. As one respondent observed, in relation to The Parks Trust, Milton Keynes:

From the outset, the whole of the Park’s Trust portfolio of open space, funding and commercial properties has come from the public purse…However, there were no performance standards or requirements covering public usage, engagement, operational/maintenance standard, or financial performance when the Development Corporation handed over a huge amount of public assets to the Trust. (Anon, 2015a).

There is one final complication in the evaluations of trusts; that of fragmentation and the inefficiencies it can introduce. In England, a lot of the focus is on the creation of site-specific trusts, in the manner of Chiswick House and Garden Trust (2006). While this may be efficient for specific and special cases, applying the model to every park in a local authority’s portfolio would result in myriad trusts across a region, and hundreds, even thousands, across the country as a whole. This will also make cohesion and green infrastructure planning across the country more complex. An overall increase in overheads must be inevitable as individual trusts became responsible for procurement, recruitment, training, health and safety, insurance, pensions, TUPE (protection of employment) and financial compliance. While some parks would flourish, others would founder, resulting in a mixed picture that may deliver no measurable improvement on the current status quo.

Local Authority In-House Service
 

For the majority of their existence, public parks in the UK have been managed and funded through local authorities. Despite falling budgets and the impact of catastrophic World events, such as economic depressions and two World Wars, that ultimately ruined many private enterprises, local authorities have been largely successful in protecting the nation’s canon of green space. In the 1840s, it was town councils and corporations that repeatedly pressed national government for the powers to raise funds in order to provide public parks. As the cases of the Manchester men and Liverpool Corporation demonstrate (see Charitable Donations/Voluntary Contributions), leaders of Britain’s commercial and industrial towns recognised a unique window in which they could designate and protect urban green spaces for the benefit of the wider populace.

Although many such sites were compromised in the short term by the proximity of factories and dense residential streets, councillors and officers of local authorities persevered throughout the 19th century and ultimately realised their ambitions of free public parks, available to all (Chadwick, 1966, 19). By the 1870s, the majority of towns had the powers to raise funds from local rates in order to support their green space canon The result was investment in an array of services and facilities, including the introduction of an increasing number of regulations and bylaws, enforced by a growing number of park keepers, park police, and gardeners. Staffing levels varied from site to site, but in some instances could exceed 100 workers for one site (Lambert, 2005, 10).

The manner in which budgets were managed varied from city to city. In some instances, parks and garden committees seem to have paid the wage and repair bills presented to them by head gardeners without question, as was the case for many decades in Birmingham. In other instances, the records suggest direct intervention in specific sites, such as Sefton Park in Liverpool, where many of those on the council had their personal residences. Whatever the local style of management, nationally the picture remained positive well into the 20th century.

Between the 1890s and the First World War, a large proportion of privately-run gardens were acquired by local authorities (both by design and as a last resort), increasing the demands placed on budgets. Yet, despite such pressures, local authorities oversaw the most stable period of parks provision in their history. For nearly a century, revenues from local taxation were supplemented by local revenue-raising innovations, such and temporary fun fairs, festivals, open-air theatre, and cafes. The 1967 Maud Committee and subsequent Bains report marked the end of the relative independence of parks and gardens committees within the local authority structure. The Local Government Act of 1972 and the restructuring that it prompted may have been designed to improve efficiency of management, but the consequence was undoubtedly a loss of local skills and knowledge and a progressive detachment of revenue raising from individual sites. Redefined as ‘leisure services’, historic local authority parks have had to compete for funds on terms that do not always reflect their unique qualities and status as heritage assets.

In 1988, the introduction of Compulsory Competitive Tendering [CCT] was intended to ensure that all council services were competitively priced, delivering value for money to the tax payer. In reality, the result was a drastic decline in the quality of many public services and parks (Lasdun, 1991, 187–202). The problem was twofold: In terms of the tendering process, local authorities had to accept the lowest quotation, even when this might offer poor value for money. However, even more catastrophic was the fact that the system removed the correlation between savings and budgets; where savings were not ring-fenced and passed onto the parks, there was little incentive to develop and improve a facility. The introduction of the ‘Best Value’ model (1994) mitigated some of the worst effects of the tendering process, but did not impose ring-fencing of savings. Thus, in many parks today, efficiency savings have served only to subsidise other council services.

In an age of outsourcing and public-private partnerships, it is perhaps inevitable that new models should emerge to challenge the dominance of local authorities. However, the loss of local authority staff in the form of park rangers, park keepers, landscape and horticultural professionals, has had a tangible and detrimental impact of the sector as a whole. With the decline of the large country house estates following the First World War, local authorities came to provide the bulk of horticultural training and career structure in Britain (English Heritage, 2012b). Under such pressures and diminishing tax revenues, it is not surprising that local authorities struggled to maintain the high standards they had set previously.

To some extent, the perceived failure of the local authority model has been a self-fulfilling prophecy. As successive services were cut and outsourced, in-house departments found it harder to justify their existence. Furthermore, as the maintenance itself was simplified and downgraded to grass cutting and tree pollarding, opportunities to demonstrate the very real economic value of employing a trained workforce diminished. The result is that today, most local authority parks departments have been hollowed out. Yet, while it might be fair to assert that the management model currently employed in local authorities is struggling, the historical record indicates that this has, to some extent, been by design rather than any systemic weakness.

PART FOUR: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

Many of the most radical models for funding green space are more easily applied to when sites are being created; providing endowments and trusts retrospectively is complex and potentially financially unrealistic. However, it is existing green spaces that are most in need of investment and protection. Local authorities, national government and independent bodies should be discouraged from neglecting the greater challenges presented by historic parks in order to win easier battles. New green spaces should not be created at the expense of the nation’s portfolio of historic parks and gardens and they are not valid substitutes for existing, historical parks, which continue to perform a practical function as well as constituting valuable heritage assets.

Philanthropy

Charitable Donations/Voluntary Contributions
 

• Historically, philanthropic engagement with parks tended to be at a local rather than national level. Donors responded to local needs and interests rather than national agendas
• The solicitation and contribution of donations did not require new legislation or powers afforded to local authorities
• Donations are, by their nature, voluntary and therefore unpredictable
• Past donations helped fund parks across a range of owners and management models, including trusts and local authorities
• While historically, the solicitation of donations was frequently conducted by a small number of the local social and political elite who could afford to donate the extensive time required, such ‘Athenaeum cliques’ no longer exist in many British towns and cities. Consequently, the solicitation and management of cash donations now demands considerable resources in itself
• As many large donations have historically been made as a means of commemorating or memorialising an individual, they have also generally been applied for capital investment only. When multiple donors have been sought, fund-raising has commonly been restricted to a discrete timeframe
• There are no significant examples of donations to support endowments and sustained management income
• Charitable donation has historically been used in the creation of new facilities. There is little historical precedent for using large donations to secure on-going maintenance budgets or an endowment for existing public parks
• For the year 2010/11, only three per cent of all charitable donations in the UK went to environmental causes, and only two per cent went to sports; health (excluding hospitals) attracted five per cent (UK Civil Society Almanac 2012, https://data.ncvo.org.uk/)
• HLF’s State of UK Public Parks records that friends groups have been raising £30m per year for parks which is commendable but a tiny proportion of fund raising or sums required (HLF, 2014). For example, the most recent data available from the Milton Keynes Parks Trust indicates that body alone currently expends £6.78 million per annum on the maintenance and management of parks (The Parks Trust, Annual Report and Financial Statements 2014/15, 27).

Historically, financial donations have tended to be socially exclusive as the ability to donate significant sums was limited to those with disposable capital. The disproportionate power that this afforded a small group of donors enabled a number of them to exert control formally or informally over the site or wider park portfolio. Early fund-raising campaigns for local parks commonly relied upon the residency of a number of extremely wealthy individuals who identified strongly with a particular city and its people. As industry and commerce is now globalised, wealth has become detached from the centres of production. In Britain today, there may be few individuals who both identify exclusively with a particular city and whose wealth would be great enough to fund substantial projects. Consequently, notwithstanding local enthusiasm, there may no longer be the economic resources within a region, town or community to replicate the local philanthropy that characterised Victorian urban improvements. The historical record suggests that philanthropic donation is not a sustainable model for funding existing parks. Developments of the 21st-century such as crowd funding and more volunteering offer new philanthropic donation approaches and may present a more socially inclusive and economically sustainable model for modern communities. However, the scale of funding raising may be a challenge.

Donation of Land and Transferal of Existing Parks
 

• Some estate parks already included features and facilities that were appropriate for public use, such as lakes, bridges, and mature trees
• Donation of land helped to protect sites from residential and commercial development
• When land was appropriate for adaptation into a park, its donation saved local authorities the purchasing cost
• A gift of land alone equated to a capital donation, which was often unaccompanied by any financial endowment
• Donations of land or other non-cash assets (such as statues, glasshouses, or fountains) sometimes increased the financial burden of landscaping and maintaining a park
• Donations of land parcels were sometimes used as ‘bargaining chips’ by commercial developers to compensate for undesirable building schemes that would be rejected on their own terms
• The significant inflation of land values in an area approved for development can distort the perceived monetary value of a donated land parcel and deter donations in areas where parks are most needed.

Land donated has rarely been high-value land; it is typically land that was deemed unsuitable for housing development or agriculture due to flooding, marsh, former industrial use, and/or uneven terrain. It was thus rarely selected strategically or located in commercially desirable locations. This not only limited the location and extent of land donated, but also meant much of the land ‘gifted’ required substantial landscaping and improvement before it can be used by the public. The donor often placed covenants on the land that reflected their personal wishes at the price of popularity, function, and long-term viability. Although the successive reorganisation of local authorities has restructured the power systems through which parks are managed, original covenants placed on land by donors as early as the 1840s may still present an obstacle to new land uses and revenue-generating schemes. This may be an area of negotiation for new sites, but may prove more problematic for existing historic parks and gardens.

In some instances, local authorities acquired ‘ready-made’ parks with at least some of the necessary features and furniture and as with any form of land donation, the new owner saved the purchase price. However, parks were often transferred to the local authority in a poor state of disrepair, requiring immediate capital investment. The transferral of the asset was rarely accompanied by transferral of an endowment as a lack of funds was the principle motivation behind their disposal. Historically, local authorities have acted as custodians and funders of last resort, meaning that any parks that have been transferred in this manner had a record of financial difficulties. In the past the potential to transfer parks to local authorities has served as an informal underwriting for private ventures with profitable parks remaining in private ownership and losses transferred to the tax payer. However, most local authorities no longer accept such land donations and are, in fact, seeking to transfer their parks to other agencies. In 2014 the figure stood at 45 per cent of local authorities that were considering disposing of some green spaces (HLF, 2014).

Subscription
 

• Subscriptions provide medium-term income and support for a site beyond capital investment
• Sites are funded directly by those who use them
• Subscribers have often paid fees specifically to enjoy relatively exclusive environments making sites either inaccessible, or at least limiting their access to those on low incomes. In the past this has served to reinforce social divisions in some cities and neighbourhoods.

Successful modern membership organisations typically hold a large portfolio of sites distributed across the country and the jewels in the crown of membership organisations tend to be ‘destination’ sites, attracting visitors from significant distances. The exception has been local garden societies and pleasure gardens, the appeal of which often relied upon the expected personal gain from regular use. Such a model thus relied upon a committed local, resident population with the means and desire to subscribe. The park ‘product’ on offer had to be seen to have a unique attraction above and beyond comparable free locations. This committed the management to continual innovation and improvement which ultimately led to the financial collapse of many pleasure gardens.

Taxation
 

• Funding via taxation has provided the most secure and sustainable model for British parks
• Democratic accountability remains intact. Government has never, and is unlikely to, provide the requisite funding to support local authorities in their provision of public parks
• Local authorities are currently forbidden by severe financial penalties from raising council taxes to improve park services
• Attitudes to taxation remain subject to political agendas and electoral cycles
• The geographical reach of parks (both perceived and real) has always been central to the question of taxation. Different approaches are needed for ‘destination’ and ‘local’ parks
• As non-statutory services, parks have become a low priority for many local authorities. Without ring-fencing, local authorities have often reduced their expenditure on local parks
• The source of funding is also the funder of last resort. In some instances this can discourage short-termism and profiteering from public assets
• By sharing financial responsibility for a park, all residents and users have a stake in its survival and equality of access in its use.

Local authorities are not immune to external pressures, such as housing targets. Historically, local authority ownership often protected sites from development but this is no longer the case. The historical record provides evidence that increasing the powers afforded to local authorities to raise revenues locally has historically increased park budgets, without increasing central government spending. This was the strategy employed in 1875 and which led to the longest period in financial stability across the sector.

Grants
 

• The model of relying on grants for capital projects dates back to Peel’s initial, albeit it insufficient, national fund of £10,000 (which would equate to approximately £770,000 in today's real price value)
• They have commonly provided injections of cash for capital investments that can completely transform the long-term performance and sustainability of parks
• Competition for grants can also encourage best practice.

There is evidence that grant competitions have sometimes forced managers of multiple parks to privilege one park at the expense of others, thus actually condemning some sites to further dereliction. Nevertheless, in the absence of any other programme of funding, grants can provide the only means of funding comprehensive restoration projects.

Loans
 

• Loans can enable capital expenditure projects to occur where grant applications have been unsuccessful or where match funding cannot be guaranteed
• For parks in areas of social deprivation and therefore with low revenues from local taxes, loans can provide the initial injection of cash for renovations that in turn raise property values and the potential for revenue-raising activity, such as weddings and ticketed events
• Loans must be repaid and therefore depend on the creation of a surplus in revenues in excess of the funds required to maintain the site
• During economic downturns, ability to repay a loan may be reduced, placing additional pressure on the service
• Interest on a loan can take money away from parks delivery.

To be sustainable, loans are most effectively invested in revenue-creating schemes. For trusts, this can work well as they can ring-fence the subsequent return for use in parks, but such protection is essential.

Speculative Development
 

• Although sale of properties can deliver a necessary injection of capital for initial laying-out costs, this has historically proved unsustainable as a source of income. An annual levy could potentially cover on-going maintenance
• London garden squares provide one historical example of where the value of private developments was directly increased by the provision of high quality green space. However, the private nature of many remaining locked garden squares beings into question its suitability as a model for public parks
• As early as the 1840s, a reliance on funds generated from speculative developments has reduced the financial burden on local authorities
• The model is difficult to introduce retrospectively.

Today, even allowing for inflation, the price of real estate across England is far higher today than in the mid-19th century. The sale of building plots would therefore potentially deliver proportionately higher, albeit finite, sums to fund parks. However, as the greatest challenge currently lies in funding existing parks, focusing on speculative development misdirects attention away from the most pressing problem. New developments within existing historic parks can compromise the public status as well as their physical character. In addition, high residential property values have historically been linked to social exclusivity which was always in conflict with the principle of equal access that underpins modern park provision. Compounding such risks is the historical reality that the sums raised by speculative development have proved insufficient for park creation, let alone ongoing maintenance.

Endowment
 

• Those in control of an endowment can potentially operate independently of local and national government, meaning they are relatively unaffected by the electoral cycle and external political pressures, such as housing targets
• After the initial endowment is provided, there is no ongoing cost to the local authority
• Ring fencing is integral to the endowment model, ensuring that the returns made from investing the endowment are ploughed back into the parks service
• An enormous endowment is required and the delivery of a cash endowment is a financial impossibility for most local authorities
• A portion of any cash endowment must be invested in order to secure long-term viability. This limits the sums available for capital investment and maintenance, compounding the need for a large initial endowment
• The requirement to invest and develop an endowment means they are not immune to losses and bankruptcy
• The terms of the lease that accompanies an endowment must be laid down at the start of the lease. It can be difficult to ensure that these terms suit the needs of future generations.

A diverse and large portfolio of assets used to support parks is essential for financial resilience. Therefore, the endowment model is more reliable when economies of scale can be exploited. Endowments are potentially more vulnerable when liabilities and assets are limited to only a few sites and investments. Given the current trend towards a fragmentation of the sector, and pressure to transfer assets to small, individual communities, local authorities may need to act sooner rather than later if they wish to adopt this model. To date even the most long-standing trusts charged with managing public parks has just two decades of experience. The long-term viability of the model is untested.

Revenue Creation within Parks
 

• Revenues reflect intensity of use, meaning that popular destinations which experience significant footfall can be recompensed with higher revenues
• There is high market demand for events such as weddings and concerts
• A diversification of land use can make parks more resilient to climate change and trends in leisure and recreation
• Ticket prices can be prohibitively expensive
• Many events and land uses require the exclusion of the public, albeit on a temporary basis
• The noise, traffic, and disruption caused by some events can create friction with local residents and stakeholders.

Certain forms of commercial activities are particularly suited to historic parks, where the heritage landscape commands a premium. Such events include: weddings, filming, and horticultural or agricultural shows. The landscape toll can be costly too with parks damaged by events. Public attitudes to ticketed events tend to be more positive when they reflect a charitable, social, or patriotic cause, such as the Olympics, galas, or heritage days. Also, occasional or short-term events are less divisive than permanent restrictions to public access. While there may be scope to charge for one-off events and possibly small areas of a park, for example a walled garden that was kept to the very highest standard, this may not make much difference to financial sustainability of a large site.

September 2016

REFERENCES

Reports, Pamphlets and Guidance Documents
 

Bains 1972 The New Local Authorities: Management and Structure.

Barnet Borough Council 2014 Proposed disposal of former Park Keepers Lodge, Victoria Park, Long Lane, Finchley, N3.

Brown 2012 The Olympic Park Legacy – a joint enterprise.

CABESpace 2004a Is the Grass Greener?: learning from international innovations in urban green space management. London: Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110118095356/http:/www.cabe.org.uk/files/is-the-grass-greener-full.pdf  (use shortened url http://tinyurl.com/j2t5w3p)

CabeSpace 2004b The Value of Public Space: how high quality parks and public spaces create economic social and environmental value. London: Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment 7
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110118095356/http:/www.cabe.org.uk/publications/the-value-of-public-space
(use shortened url http://tinyurl.com/zhbxt2x)

CabeSpace 2005a Does Money Grow on Trees? London: Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110118095356/http:/www.cabe.org.uk/files/does-money-grow-on-trees.pdf  (use shortened url http://tinyurl.com/74rjxt6)

CabeSpace 2005b Start with the Park: creating sustainable urban green spaces in areas of housing growth and renewal. London: Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110118095356/http:/www.cabe.org.uk/files/start-with-the-park.pdf
(use shortened url http://tinyurl.com/hnqy9cr)

CabeSpace 2006a Paying for Parks: eight models for funding green space. London: Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110118095356/http:/www.cabe.org.uk/files/paying-for-parks.pdf
(use shortened url http://tinyurl.com/pg3dwk9)

CabeSpace 2006b Urban Parks: do you know what you’re getting for your money. London: Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110118095356/http:/www.cabe.org.uk/files/urban-parks.pdf  (use shortened url http://tinyurl.com/z3kpug3)

CabeSpace 2007 It's Our Space: a guide for community groups working to improve public space. London: Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110118095356/http:/www.cabe.org.uk/publications/its-our-space (use shortened url http://tinyurl.com/zz2jjlz)

CabeSpace 2008 Improving Park Performance: public space lessons. London: Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110118095356/http:/www.cabe.org.uk/files/improving-green-space-skills.pdf  (use shortened url http://tinyurl.com/jvbj9tt)

CabeSpace 2009a Grey to Green: how we shift funding and skills to green our cities. London: Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110118095356/http:/www.cabe.org.uk/files/grey-to-green.pdf  (use shortened url http://tinyurl.com/pgotv8r)

CabeSpace 2009b Making the Invisible Visible: the real value of park assets. London: Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110118095356/http:/www.cabe.org.uk/publications/making-the-invisible-visible  (use shortened url http://tinyurl.com/74blryl)

CabeSpace 2010a Community-led Spaces: a guide for local authorities and community groups. London: Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment

CabeSpace 2010b Managing Green Spaces: seven ingredients for success. London: Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110118095356/http:/www.cabe.org.uk/publications/community-led-spaces  (use shortened url http://tinyurl.com/z3zu8lh)

Committee on the Management of Local Government 1967 Management of Local Government.
http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C879

Conway, Hazel and Lambert, David 1993 Public Prospects: historic urban parks under threat. London: Garden History Society and the Victorian Society

Countryside Commission, 1969 Policy on Country Parks and Picnic Sites. Cheltenham: Countryside Commission

Department for Communities and Local Government 2012 National Planning Policy Framework.
www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/6077/2116950.pdf  (use shortened url http://tinyurl.com/nza38f3)

Department for Culture, Media, and Sport  2010 Plans for the Legacy from the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games.
www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/78105/201210_Legacy_Publication.pdf (use shortened url http://tinyurl.com/j9bfly7)

Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions,2006 Green Spaces, Better Places: final report of the Urban Green Spaces Taskforce.
Available at http://www.rudi.net/node/7936

Dobson, Julian 2012 Grey Places need Green Spaces: the case for investing in our nation’s natural assets. 
www.operationgroundwork.org.uk/take-action/green-space-report

Drayson, Katherine 2013 Parkland: How open data can improve our green spaces. www.policyexchange.org.uk/images/publications/park%20land.pdf

Drayson, Katherine 2014 Green Society: Policies to improve the UK’s urban green spaces.
www.policyexchange.org.uk/publications/category/item/green-society-policies-to-improve-the-uk-s-green-spaces

English Heritage 2000 A Campaign for London Squares.  London: English Heritage

English Heritage 2007 Golf in Historic Parks and Landscapes. Product Code: 51171 https://content.historicengland.org.uk/images-books/publications/golf-in-historic-parks-and-landscapes/golfinhistoricparksandlandscapes.pdf/

English Heritage 2010 The Register of Parks and Gardens: Moving towards a new way of managing England’s historic environment.
https://content.historicengland.org.uk/images-books/publications/register-parks-gardens/register-parks-garden.pdf/

English Heritage 2012a The National Heritage Protection Plan: an introduction. https://content.historicengland.org.uk/images-books/publications/nhpp-leaflet/nhpp-leaflet.pdf/  (use shortened url http://tinyurl.com/hde3ty6)

English Nature 1997 A Framework for the Future: green networks with multiple uses in and around towns and cities.
http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/77041

Forest Research 2010 Benefits of Green Infrastructure: report to Defra and CLG. http://www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/urgp_benefits_of_green_infrastructure_main_report.pdf/$FILE/urgp_benefits_of_green_infrastructure_main_report.pdf
(use shortened url http://tinyurl.com/q4zk6cm)

Greater London Authority 2003 Valuing Greenness: green spaces, house prices and Londoner’s priorities.
www.london.gov.uk/what-we-do/business-and-economy/business-and-economy-publications/valuing-greenness-green-spaces

GreenSpace (as Urban Parks Forum) 2001 Public Parks Assessment. Available at http://www.rudi.net/node/6691

GreenSpace 2005 Green Future: a study of the management of multifunctional urban green spaces in England.

GreenSpace 2007 Park Life Report.

GreenSpace 2011 Impact of the Comprehensive Spending Review (interim report).

Heritage Lottery Fund 2014 State of UK Public Parks 2014: Renaissance to Risk. https://www.hlf.org.uk/state-uk-public-parks

Heritage Lottery Fund, Big Lottery Fund and Nesta February 2016 Learning to Rethink Public Parks Nesta
www.nesta.org.uk/sites/default/files/learning_to_rethinking_parks_report.pdf

Hirsch 2015 A Minimum Income Standard for the UK in 2015. Joseph Rowntree Foundation
www.jrf.org.uk/sites/default/files/jrf/migrated/files/MIS-2015-full.pdf

House of Commons ODPM: Housing, Planning, Local Government and the Regions Committee Living Places: Cleaner, Safer, Greener Report
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200203/cmselect/cmodpm/673/673.pdf" www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200203/cmselect/cmodpm/673/673.pdf

House of Commons Library 2015 Assets of Community Value.
www.researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/SN06366

House of Commons Science and Technology Committee 2015 Seventh Report. Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew
www.publications.parliament.uk

ICOMOS-IFLA 2013 Canberra Declaration on Historic Urban Public Parks
http://www.landscapes.icomos.org/index.php/en/canberra" landscapes.icomos.org/index.php/en/canberra 

Johnson 1885 Parks and Playgrounds for the People.

Kit Campbell Associates 2001 Rethinking Open Space, Open Space Provision and Management - A Way Forward.   Scottish Executive Central Research Unit
www.gov.scot/Resource/Doc/156814/0042172.pdf                                                   

Lambert, David 2005 The Park Keeper. English Heritage
https://content.historicengland.org.uk/images-books/publications/the-park-keeper/the-park-keeper.pdf/
(use shortened url http://tinyurl.com/hxboj39)

LANTRA 2012b Cultivating Skills in Historic and Botanic Gardens:Careers, Occupations and Skills required for the Management and Maintenance of Historic and Botanic Gardens. English Heritage
https://content.historicengland.org.uk/images-books/publications/cultivating-skills/cultivating-skills-lantra-eh-report.pdf/
(use shortened url http://tinyurl.com/hxdvh9s)

Layton-Jones, Katy 2014 National Review of Research Priorities for Urban Parks, Designed Landscapes, and Open Spaces. English Heritage Research Report Series http://research.historicengland.org.uk/

Lee Valley Regional Park Authority 2015 Lee Valley Regional Park Authority Levy 2015/16
http://www.leevalleypark.org.uk/en/content/cms/corporate/business-finance/funding/

London Borough of Hounslow 2007 Scrutiny Review of Leisure and Cultural Services - a way forward.
http://democraticservices.hounslow.gov.uk/documents/s28035/Leisure%20Cultural%20Services%20Review.pdf

Lee, Robert 2004 Community Use of Birkenhead Park: an analysis of cultural, leisure and sporting opportunities.

Letchworth Garden City Heritage Foundation 1995 Regulations of Letchworth Garden City Heritage Foundation (updated 2014).
www.letchworth.com/sites/default/files/attachments/regulations.pdf

Letchworth Garden City Heritage Foundation 2014a Annual Reports and Accounts 2014
www.letchworth.com/heritage-foundation

Letchworth Garden City Heritage Foundation 2014b, Corporate Plan October 2014 to September 2015. www.letchworth.com/heritage-foundation

Mayor of London 2007 Five Legacy Commitments for London 2012 Olympic Games. Available at www.cslondon.org/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2008/01/GLA%20-%205-legacy-commitments.pdf
(use shortened url http://tinyurl.com/gq269l3)

Mayor of London and Greater London Authority 2012a All London Green Grid: summary of consultation responses and recommended response.

Mayor of London and Greater London Authority 2012b Green Infrastructure and Open Environments: the all London green grid.
www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/algg_spg_mar2012.pdf

Metropolitan Public Garden, Boulevard, and Playground Association 1883
A Brief Statement of the Objects of the Metropolitan Public Garden, Boulevard, and Playground Association.

National Audit Office 2006 Enhancing Urban Green Space.
www.nao.org.uk/report/enhancing-urban-green-space/

NCVO and Charities Aid Foundation UK Giving 2012
www.cafonline.org/docs/default-source/about-us-publications/ukgiving2012full.pdf

Natural England 2007 Green Infrastructure and the Urban Fringe: learning lessons from the ‘Countryside in and around Towns’ programme. NE33
http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/36009

Natural England 2009a Natural England’s Green Infrastructure Guidance. NE176 http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/35033

Natural England 2009b No Charge? Valuing the natural environment. NE220
http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/36019

Neal, Peter 2013 Rethinking Parks. Exploring New Business Models for Parks in the 21st Century. Nesta, Heritage Lottery Fund and Big Lottery Fund
http://www.nesta.org.uk/sites/default/files/rethinking_parks.pdf

OPLC 2011 Design Competition South. Available at
http://malcolmreading.co.uk/architecturalcompetitions/legacycompany/south/overview 

Select Committee on Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs 1999 Twentieth Report. Town and Country Parks.
www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199899/cmselect/cmenvtra/cmenvtra.htm

Simms, Barbara (ed) 2001 City Parks in the next Millennium London Parks & Gardens Trust Available at
http://trove.nla.gov.au/work/34606638?selectedversion=NBD22538723

House of Commons Library 2015 Planning for Housing Briefing Paper number 03741, 2 June 2015.
www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/sn03741.pdf

The Parks Trust 2013 Growing Your Future. Milton Keynes
www.theparkstrust.com/

The Parks Trust 2014 Strategic Plan. Milton Keynes
www.theparkstrust.com/

The Parks Trust 2015 Annual Report and Financial Statements 2014/15. Milton Keynes www.theparkstrust.com/

Varma 2003 Working paper 3 - Valuing Greenness: is there a segmented preference for housing attributes in London?  Greater London Authority
www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/valuing_greenness_paper.pdf

Wallis, Ed 2015 Places to Be: Green spaces for active citizenship.
www.fabians.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/PlacesToBe-Final1.pdf

West Yorkshire Archaeology Advisory Service 2007 Heaton Estates.
www.archaeology.wyjs.org.uk/documents/archaeology/ConsHea.pdf

Wirral Council 2012 Birkenhead Park Management Plan 2012 – 2017 (updated 2013).
https://www.wirral.gov.uk/sites/default/files/all/Leisure%20parks%20and%20events/parks%20and%20open%20spaces/birkenhead%20park%20regeneration%20and%20environment%20directorate.pdf
(use shortened url http://tinyurl.com/h6s3f86)

Worpole, Ken 2012 Park Life Revisited. Heritage Lottery Fund closedprogrammes.hlf.org.uk/ourproject/Documents/ParkLife_revisited.pdf

Yates Thompson 1904 Memorandum to the Lord Mayor of Liverpool

Articles and Book Chapters

Askwith, Clare 1999 ‘The economic contribution of historic parks, gardens and designed landscapes: a review of existing data and research and recommendations for future research, Cultural Trends 35, 29–79.

Auton-Smith, Amy 2013 ‘The use of Teckal company structures in public service delivery’, www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk  (accessed 25 August 2015).

Bailey,  John 1925 ‘The National Trust’ The Town Planning Review 11 (3) 1925, 150–156.

BBC News 2015 ‘London's parks “could become inaccessible to the public”’ 21 June 2015. www.bbc.co.uk/news  (accessed 2 July 2015).

Bramwell, Bill 1991 ‘Public space and local communities: the example of Birmingham, 1840-1880’ in Kearns, G and Withers, Charles WJ (eds.) 1991 Urbanising Britain: essays on class and community in the nineteenth century
31-54 Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Borsay, Peter 1989  ‘Provincial Urban Squares 1680–1770’ in  The English Urban Renaissance: Culture and society in the provincial town 1660–1770
323-4 Oxford: Oxford University Press

Clark, Frank 1973 ‘Nineteenth-century public parks from 1830’ Garden History 1 (3), 31–41.

Clark, Peter and Houston, Allan 2000 ‘Culture and leisure 1700–1840’, in Clark, P (ed) 2000 The Cambridge Urban History of Britain Volume 2 575–613 Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Charlton, Susannah 2011 ‘What have 20th-century urban landscapes taught us?’ Landscape Autumn, 5.

Chubb, LW 1916  ‘The Common Lands of London: The Story of their Preservation’, Journal of the Royal Society of Arts 64 (1916), 186–199.

Conlin, Jonathan 2006 ‘Vauxhall Revisited: The Afterlife of a London Pleasure Garden, 1770 – 1859’ Journal of British Studies 45, 718–743.

Conway, Hazel 1985 ‘The Manchester/Salford parks: their design and development’ Garden History 5 (3), 231–260.

Conway, Hazel 2000 ‘Everyday landscapes: public parks from 1930 to 2000’ Garden History 28 (1), 117–134.

Conway, Hazel, 2009 ‘Victorian Parks: is the grass greener?’ The Victorian 30, 4-8.

Counsell, Dave and Houghton, Graham 2006 ‘Sustainable development in regional planning: the search for new tools and renewed legitimacy’ Geoforum 37, 921–931.

Crompton, John L 2001 ‘The impact of parks on property values: a review of the empirical evidence’ Journal of Leisure Research 33 (1), 1–31.

Doyle, Barry and Taigel, Anthea1990 ‘Parks and gardens in the nineteenth century’ in  Williamson, Tom and Taigel, Anthea  (eds.) Gardens in Norfolk, 1550–1900  40-50  Norwich: Centre of East Anglian Studies

Elliott, Brent 1988 ‘From people’s parks to green deserts’ Landscape Design 171, 13–15.

Fawcett, Trevor 1967 ‘The Norwich Pleasure Gardens’ Norfolk Archaeology 25, 382–99.

Gaffkin, Frank, Mceldowney, Malachy and Sterrett, Ken  2010 ‘Creating Shared Urban Space in the Contested City: the role of urban design Journal of Urban Design 15 (4), 493–513.

Green, Fiona 2010 ‘Impolite landscapes: making private parks public’ in Faulkner, Thomas, Berry, Helen and Gregory, Jeremy  (eds) 2010  Northern Landscapes: representations and realities of North-East England 109–24.  Woodbridge: Boydell Press

Harding, Stewart 2007 ‘Life after funding’ Green Places 40, 10–12.

Heartwell, Horace 1842 ‘Characteristics of Manchester: in a series of letters to the Editor’ North of England Magazine, April 1842, p. 164.

Henneberger, JW 2002 ‘Origins of fully funded public parks’, The George Wright Forum 19 (2), 13–20.

Ibrahim, Magda 2008 ‘Contractor to take over Hounslow's parks’ Horticulture Week, 5 June 2008 www.hortweek.com/contractor-hounslows-parks/article/814969  (accessed 1 September 2015).

Lambert, David 1999 ‘Politics and parks: renaissance and inertia’ Cultural Trends 35, 21–6.

Lambert, David 2010 ‘Public Parks and the Big Society’ The London Gardener 2010, 41–44.

Lambert, David 2014 ‘Thinking About ‘Rethinking Parks’ The London Gardener 2014, 41–47.

Layton-Jones, Katy 2013 ‘Public parks and legacies of leisure’ in Itzen and Müller (eds) 2013 Industry and Industrial Heritage in the Twentieth Century 132-152. Augsburg: Wißner - Verlag Available at http://adef-britishstudies.org/docs/SR_ADEF_69.pdf
(use shortened url http://tinyurl.com/jc2uumx)

Lucking, Richard C, Howard, Keith and Greenwood, Michael J  1974 ‘Corporate Planning and Management: A Review of Their Application in English Local Government’ The Town Planning Review 45 (2) 131–145.

Malchow, Howard L 1985 ‘Public Gardens and Social Action in Late Victorian London’, Victorian Studies 29, 97–124.

Maver, Irene 1998 ‘Glasgow's public parks and the community, 1850-1914: a case study in Scottish civic interventionism’ Urban History 25, 323–47.

O’Reilly, Carole 2011 ‘Re-ordering the landscape: landed elites and the new urban aristocracy in Manchester’ Urban History Review 40 (1), 30–40.

O’Reilly, Carole 2012 ‘From“the people” to “the citizen”: the emergence of the Edwardian municipal park in Manchester 1902 – 1912’ Urban History 39, 136–155.

Osborn, Frederic J 1945 ‘The garden city movement: a revaluation’ Journal of the Town Planning Institute 31 (6), 193–207.

Smith, Jef 1972 ‘Just About Managing’ The Spectator, 29 September 1972, p.34.

Ward Thompson, Catherine 1998 ‘Urban open space in the 21st century’ Landscape and Urban Planning 60 (2) 59–72.

Wilson, Olivia  and Hughes, Olwen  2011 ‘Urban green space policy and discourse in England under New Labour from 1997 to 2010’ Planning Practice and Research 26 (2), 207–228.

Wyborn, Theresa 1995 ‘Parks for the people: the development of public parks in Victorian Manchester’ Manchester Region History Review 9, 3–14.

Young, Colin 1998 ‘The making of Bristol’s Victorian parks’ Transactions of the Bristol and Gloucestershire Archaeological Society 116, 175–84.

Books
 

Bailey, Peter 1978 Leisure and Class in Victorian England: rational recreation and the contest for control 1830-1885. London: Routledge

Cameron, David Kerr 2001 London’s Pleasures: from Restoration to Regency. Stroud: Sutton Publishing

Chadwick, George 1966 The Park and the Town: public landscape in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. New York: F. A. Praeger

Chinn, Cark 2012 Free Parks for the People: A History of Birmingham's Municipal Parks, 1844-1974. Studley: Brewin Books

Clark, Peter (ed) 2006 The European City and Green Space: London, Stockholm, Helsinki and St Petersburg, 1850–2000.  Oxford: Routledge

Conway, Hazel 1991 People’s Parks: the design and development of Victorian parks in Britain. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Coke, David E  and Borg, Alan 2011 Vauxhall Gardens: a history. New Haven and London: The Paul Mellon Centre for Studies in British Art

Corfield, Penelope 2008 Vauxhall and the Invention of the Urban Pleasure Garden.  London: History and Social Action Publications

Donnison, David 1997 Policies for a Just Society. London: Palgrave

Downing, Sarah Jane 2009 The English Pleasure Garden 1660-1860. Oxford: Shire Publications Ltd

Fox, T 1990 Urban Open Space: an Investment that pays. New York: University of Minnesota

Gold, John R and Gold, Margaret M 2011 (eds) Olympic Cities: City agendas, planning, and the World’s Games, 1896-2016. Abingdon

Hoskins, George and Stamp, L Dudley 1963 The Common Lands of England and Wales. London: The New Naturalists, Harper Collins Ltd

Itzen and Müller (eds) 2013 The Invention of Industrial Pasts: Heritage, political culture and economic debates in Great Britain and Germany, 1850-2010. Augsburg: Wißner Verlag

Jones, Karen and Wills, John 2005 The Invention of the Park. Cambridge, Mass: Wiley

Lasdun, Susan 1991 The English Park: royal, private and public. London: Rizzoli International Publications

Layton-Jones, Katy and Lee, Robert 2008 Places of Health and Amusement: Liverpool's historic parks and gardens. Swindon: English Heritage

Longstaffe-Gowan, Todd 2012 Todd The London Square: Gardens in the Midst of Town. New Haven and London: Yale University Press

Low, Setha Taplin, Dana and Scheld, Suzanne 2006 Rethinking Urban Parks: public space and cultural diversity. Houston: University of Texas Press

Massey Schenker, Heath 2009 Melodramatic Landscapes: Urban Parks in the nineteenth century. Charlottesville and London: University of Virginia Press

McKellar, Elizabeth 2013 Landscapes of London: The city, the country and the suburbs 1660 – 1840.  New Haven and London: Yale University Press

Miller, Mervyn 2010 English Garden Cities: an introduction. Swindon: English Heritage

Minton, Anna 2009 Ground Control: fear and happiness in the twenty-first-century city. London: Penguin

Newman, Peter and Thornley, Andy 1996 Urban Planning in Europe: International Competition, National Systems and Planning Projects.  London: Routledge

Pettigrew, Wallace 1937 Municipal Parks: layout, management, and administration together with a short treatise on the organization of a public parks department.  London

Polley, Martin 2011 The British Olympics: British Olympic heritage 1612-2012. Swindon: English Heritage

Pruetz, Rick 2012 Lasting Value: open space planning and preservation successes. Chicago: APA Planners Press

Stedman Jones, Gareth 1992 Outcast London: A Study in the Relationship between Classes in Victorian Society. London: Verso

Watkins, John and Wright, Thomas 2007 (eds) The Management and Maintenance of Historic Parks, Gardens and Landscapes: the English Heritage Handbook.  London: Frances Lincoln

Welch, David 1995 Managing Public Use of Parks, Open spaces and Countryside. London: Financial Times/Prentice Hall

Woudstra, Jan and Fieldhouse, Ken (eds) 2000 The Regeneration of Public Parks London: E & PN Spon

Wright, Patrick 1985 (2009 edn) On Living in an Old Country. Oxford: Oxford University Press

Wroth Wand Wroth, AE 1896 (1979 reprint) The London Pleasure Gardens of the Eighteenth Century. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan

Unpublished Research

CABE and MORI, 2004 Public Attitudes to Architecture and Public Space: transforming neighbourhoods, by MORI.

Conway, Hazel 1985 The Municipal Park: design and development c1840-1880. Ph.D. dissertation Leicester Polytechnic.

Couch, Sarah 2012 Wicksteed Park Conservation Management Plan.

Eeles, 1997 The Provision of Parks and Preservation of Open Spaces for 19th-Century London. M.A. dissertation University of Exeter.

Hughes, John Charles 1995 Newsham: A Victorian Park and Its Environment. Diploma dissertation University of Liverpool.

Londstaffe-Gowan, Todd 1989 The London Town Garden 1700 – 1830: the experience of nature in the eighteenth-century city. Ph.D. dissertation University of London.

Marne, 1996 The City, Culture and the Privatisation of Public Space: finding space for resistance at Sefton. Ph.D. dissertation University of Liverpool.

O’Reilly, Carole 2009 Aristocratic Fortune to Civic Aspiration: issues in the passage of aristocratic land to municipal ownership in later nineteenth and early twentieth-century Manchester, with particular reference to the sale of Heaton Park. Ph.D. dissertation Manchester Metropolitan University.

Smith, John Butland  2001 The Governance of Wolverhampton, 1848-1888. Ph.D. dissertation University of Leicester.

Spiers, M 1962 Victoria Park, Manchester: a study of its administration and its relations with local government. MA dissertation University of Manchester.

Timmins, Peter 2012 Peter Timmins (Interim Director of Finance, Metropolitan Borough of Wirral) ‘The Financial Challenge', Sustainable Communities Scrutiny Workshop, 10 October 2012, Birkenhead Park.

Whittle, M 1990 Philanthropy in Preston: the changing face of charity in a 19th-century provincial town. Ph.D. dissertation Lancaster University.

Unpublished Interviews and Correspondence with Practitioners

Foster, 2015 – David Foster, interview with Layton-Jones, 2015.

Hardiman, 2012 – Steve Hardiman, Challenges facing parks and public green space.

Rabbitts, 2015  – Paul Rabbitts, interview with Layton-Jones, 2015.

Sharp, 2012 – Nigel Sharp, Park Priorities, Issues and Opportunities.

Anon, 2015a Respondent A. Current employee of local authority parks department.

Anon, 2015b Respondent B. Former employee of local authority parks department.

Anon, 2015c Respondent C. Former employee of local authority parks department.

Local Archives and Council Minutes

Minutes of the Birmingham Baths and Parks Committee Library of Birmingham, BCC1/AL/1/1/-

Minutes of the Ham Green Sub-Committee Bristol Archives, M/BCC/HEA/8/1-3, M/BCC/ HEA/27/

Minutes of the Park Committee, St. George Urban Sanitary Authority  Bristol Archives, M/BCC/SAN/ 1

Minutes of the Liverpool Parks and Recreation Committee Liverpool Record Office and Local Studies, 352 MIN

London County Council – Commons London Metropolitan Archive LCC/CO/CON -

Minutes of the Parks and Cemeteries Committee Manchester City Archives, M9/68/2/-

Minutes of the Parks, Cemeteries and Crematorium Department Salford City Archive, GB129.LCS

Minutes of the Parks and Baths, later Parks and Cemeteries, Parks and Physical Recreation Committee  Wolverhampton Archives and Local Studies, WOL-C-PB/-

Planning Applications

Liverpool City Council – 15F/0110

Newspapers

The Bee-Hive

Birmingham Daily Post

Bradford Observer

Evening Standard

The Guardian

Hull Packet and East Riding Times

Liberal Review

Liverpool Citizen

Liverpool Echo

Liverpool Review

The Manchester Times and Gazette

Morning Chronicle

The Observer

Penny Illustrated Paper

Penny Illustrated Times

Punch, or The London Charivari

Sheffield and Rotherham Independent

The Telegraph

Websites

www.arnosvale.org.uk

www.birmingham.gov.uk/bpn

CABESpace’s archived publications: 
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110118095356/http:/www.cabe.org.uk/about/cabe-space
(use shortened url http://tinyurl.com/ztbforn)

www.centralparknyc.org

www.data.ncvo.org.uk

www.greenestate.org.uk

www.greenflag.keepbritaintidy.org 

www.greenstat.org.uk

www.groundwork.org.uk

www.londoncouncils.gov.uk

http://www.nesta.org.uk/project/rethinking-parks

www.freemenofnewcastle.org/themoor

http://palmhouse.org.uk/

http://www.parks2015.uk/

www.parksandgardens.org

www.paviliongardens.co.uk

www.pbrs.org.uk/

https://saveseftonparkmeadows.org/

www.sheffield.gov.uk

www.tcv.org.uk/

http://theislagladstone.co.uk/weddings/

www.nationalparks.gov.uk

APPENDIX A - TIMELINE OF PUBLIC PARK FUNDING AND MANAGEMENT IN ENGLAND

1833                            Select Committee on Public Walks

1835                             Municipal Reform Act

1846                            Liverpool Corporation takes control of the city’s Botanic Gardens

1847                             Towns Improvement Clauses Act

1848                             Public Health Act

1859                             Recreation Grounds Act

1860                             Public Improvements Act

1863                             Town Gardens Protection Act

                            Public Works (Manufacturing Districts) Act

1865                             Commons Preservation Society founded

                            Improvement Act (enables Town Corporations and Councils to raise                                                                       funds for large-scale improvement projects)

1866                            Metropolitan Commons Act

                            Sanitary Act

Late 1860s              Economic recession and property crash

1866                             Metropolitan Commons Act

1870                             People’s Garden Company founded

1871                            Public Parks, Schools and Museums Act

1875                             People’s Garden Company goes into liquidation

                            Public Health Act

1876                             Kyrle Society Founded

                            (date is disputed and sometimes given as 1877 or 1878)

                            Commons Act

1877                             Metropolitan Open Spaces Act

1879                             Kyrle Society established open spaces sub committee

1881                            Metropolitan Open Spaces Act

1882                             Metropolitan Parks, Boulevards, and Playgrounds Association                                                                                     founded (renamed the Metropolitan Public Gardens Association)

1884                             National Footpath Preservation Society founded

                            Disused Burial Grounds Act

1887                             Open Spaces Act

1890                             London Playing Fields Association founded

1890                             Public Health Acts Amendment Act

1895                             National Trust founded

1906                            Open Spaces Act

1914-1918              First World War

1929                            Wall Street Crash prompts global recession

1931                             London Squares Preservation Act

1939-1945              Second World War

1949                             National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act

1968                             Countryside Act and Countryside Commission for England and Wales                                                                       established

1967                            Maud Committee on the Management of Local Government

1972                            Bains Report published (The New Local Authorities: management and                                                         Structure)

                            Local Government Act

1988                            Local Government Act introduces Compulsory Competitive Tendering

1992                             Local Government Act

1996                            Green Flag Awards established

                            Heritage Lottery Fund opens its Urban Parks Programme

1999                            Parliamentary Select Committee on Environment, Transport and                                                                       Regional Affairs

                            Countryside Commission merges with the Rural Development                                                                                     Commission to form the Countryside Agency

                            Compulsory Competitive Tendering replaced with ‘Best Value’ model

                            Urban Parks Forum established

2001                            Government’s Urban Green Spaces Task Force set up

2002                             Urban Green Spaces Task Force reports

2003                            Urban Parks Forum renamed GreenSpace

                            CABESpace is established at the Commission of Architecture and the                                                                       Built Environment

2008                            Global recession begins

2010                            Government’s Comprehensive Spending Review

--------------              cut off year for this review -------------------------------------------

2011                            CABESpace is dissolved and resources archived, and Design Council
                            (a Royal Charter charity) merged with CABE.

                            Localism Act

2013                            GreenSpace ceased, and assets and intellectual property dispersed

2014                            Heritage Lottery Fund’s State of UK Public Parks Report and Heritage                                                                       Lottery Fund-Big Lottery-Nesta Rethink Parks Programme set up

2016                            Heritage Lottery Fund-Big Lottery-Nesta Learning to Rethink Parks                                                                       report published

                            Heritage Lottery Fund State of UK Parks updated research published

                            Parliamentary Select Committee inquiry on public parks announced

APPENDIX B - NOTES ON THE AUTHOR AND CONTRIBUTORS

Author

The research has been conducted by Dr Katy Layton-Jones. Having completed aMPhil and PhD in British history at the University of Cambridge Katy Layton-Jones moved to the University of Liverpool where she was engaged on the Liverpool Parks and Open Spaces research project, co-funded and supported by English Heritage and Liverpool City Council. Her first book, Places of Health and Amusement, was co-written with Professor Robert Lee and published by English Heritage in 2008. Her monograph, Beyond the Metropolis: the Image of Urban Britain 1780–1880 was published by Manchester University Press in February 2016. Katy Layton-Jones has researched and published widely for academic, professional, and public readerships. Recent academic publications include: ‘The synthesis of town and trade: visualising provincial urban identity 1800-1851’ in Urban History (2008); A Commanding View: Liverpool’s Public Parks, 1722–1870, Cultural and Social History (2013), and ‘A legacy of ambivalence: industrial exhibitions, pleasure parks and urban green space in Itzen and Müller’s (eds) Industry and Industrial Heritage in the Twentieth Century (2013). Katy Layton-Jones has appeared on BBC Radio 4’s Making History and the BBC television series, People's Palaces: The Golden Age of Civic Architecture. She has given public lectures at the Southbank Centre, Imperial War Museum, Rhodes College, Memphis (USA), and Colgate University, (USA). Since 2008, Katy Layton-Jones has been based at the Centre of Urban History, University of Leicester, where she now holds a research post. She is an Associate Editor for Urban History and currently also lectures for the Open University. Katy Layton-Jones authored the ‘National review of research priorities’ for Urban Parks, Designed Landscapes and Open Spaces (Historic England, 2014).

Contributors

Drew Bennellick, Head of Landscape and Natural Heritage UK, Heritage Lottery Fund

Drew Bennellick is responsible for Heritage Lottery Fund policy, strategy and expert advice in relation to designed landscape and natural heritage projects in the UK. He is responsible for the Parks for People and Landscape Partnership targeted grant programmes, and lead officer on strategy relating to climate change mitigation and adaptation. He was formerly Deputy Director London Region at English Heritage (now Historic England).

Dr Katherine Drayson, Senior Programme & Policy Officer (Environment), GLA

Having completed a PhD at Oxford Brookes University on the ecological impact assessment in the English planning system at Oxford Brookes University, Katherine Drayson was appointed Environment and Energy Research Fellow at Policy Exchange. She has authored two policy reports on urban green spaces: Park Land (2013) and Green Society (2014). She is a member of DCLG Finance and Policy & Governance green space work streams and London's Green Infrastructure Taskforce. In October 2015  Katherine Drayson took up the post of Senior Programme and Policy Officer at the GLA.

David Foster, Chief Executive, The Parks Trust, Milton Keynes

Chief Executive of the Parks Trust, Milton Keynes since 2003, David Foster was formerly Chief Executive of Thrive (1997-2003) and Operations Director at Ground work (1987-1997).

Prof John R Gold FRSA, FRGS, Professor of Urban Historical Geography, Oxford Brookes University

John Gold has held visiting positions at the London School of Economics, the University of Surrey, the University of Birmingham, and Queen Mary, University of London. In 1999 he won the 1999 AESOP Prize for the 'best article in a journal or collection of papers, by an author researching in planning in Europe’. Recent publications include: Gold, JR and Gold, MM eds. Olympic Cities: City Agendas, Planning, and the World’s Games, 1896-2012 (2007) and Gold, JR and Gold, MM Festival Cities: Culture, Planning and Urban Life since 1918 (2013).

Steve Hardiman, Landscape Consultant

Steve Hardiman is a semi-retired landscape consultant with a wealth of experience in park management. From 1979 to 1989 he was a landscape architect for Wandsworth Borough Council after which was a landscape group leader for Kelsey Associates. In 1991 he joined Bristol City Council where he became the manager of the Landscape Design Team and subsequently manager of Place Shaping within Bristol's City Design Group.

Dr Stewart Harding, Director, The Parks Agency             

Stewart Harding is an expert in all aspects of the management, improvement, promotion and evaluation of parks, gardens and open spaces. He has written and lectured extensively on topics relating to the restoration of historic designed landscapes. While completing his PhD he ran the Avon County Council historic parks and gardens survey and became Conservation Officer for the Avon Gardens Trust and, later, its Chairman. In 1990 he took over the Countryside Commission’s Task Force Trees grant scheme for historic parks and gardens in the south west, awarding grants to 50 sites including The Lost Gardens of Heligan and Trebah in Cornwall, Hestercombe in Somerset, Ashton Court in Bristol and Royal Victoria Park in Bath. In 1996 Stewart was seconded to the Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF) to establish and run its Urban Parks Programme which awarded £185 million to 200 public parks  and later became the Parks for People programme.  On completing his secondment in 2000 he set up the Country Parks renaissance for the Countryside Agency, pioneering the first country park restoration with HLF funding at Lydiard Park in Wiltshire and laying the foundations for further work in this area. He established The Parks Agency with David Lambert in 2002.

David Lambert, Director, The Parks Agency

David Lambert is a leading authority on the history of parks and gardens. Having obtained a first-class degree from Oxford, he went on to become a Research Fellow at the Institute of Advanced Architectural Studies at the University of York and Conservation Officer for the Garden History Society (GHS) where he oversaw the development of the GHS as a statutory consultee in the planning process. In 1992, he and Hazel Conway wrote Public Prospects (1993), one of the first reports to draw attention to the crisis in public parks, and he has been closely involved in the renaissance of urban parks over the following twenty years. He served as special adviser to three House of Commons Select Committee inquiries and is currently a member of Historic England’s Advisory Committee and the National Trust’s Gardens Panel, as well as the advisory committees of Historic Royal Palaces and the World Monuments Fund. He is also a trustee and board member of The Gardens Trust, and a member of the Institute of Historic Building Conservation. Publications include The Park Keeper (2005) and Parks and Gardens: a researcher’s guide (2006).  He has written a regular column in The London Gardener for many years, and most recently he has published a guide to War Memorial Parks and Gardens (2014) for Historic England. He is a visiting lecturer and dissertation supervisor for the Masters courses on the conservation of historic gardens and cultural landscapes at the University of Bath.

Prof Robert Lee MBE, Director, Park Roots, and Professor Emeritus, University of Liverpool

Appointed lecturer in Economic History at the University of Liverpool in1972, Robert Lee was later appointed Chaddock Professor of Economic and Social History. He has had visiting professorships at Bielefeld, Stockholm and Knostanz and has been awarded research grants totalling over £3 million including: Big Lottery, Local Food Grant, ‘Edward Kemp Community Gardens and Growing Area’, £95, 569 (2011), Heritage Lottery Foundation, ‘Birkenhead Park: Heritage Education and Community Involvement, £454,500 (2006), and ESRC, ‘Liverpool’s Parks and Open Spaces: their historical and contemporary relevance’, £43,200 (2005). He is the Chairman of the Friends of Birkenhead Park (1996 – present), Wirral Parks Friends Forum (2006–present), and Wirral Parks Steering Committee (2007 –present). Since 2008 he has served as the Director of Parks Roots C.I.C. and also sits on the Executive of the Wirral History and Heritage Association, Executive Committee and Metropolitan Borough of Wirral, Birkenhead Park Management Committee. He is the panel chairman, University of Gothenburg research quality evaluation for Economic History, Economics, Law, Economic and Human Geography (RED10); Research Quality Advisory Panel, and AHRC reviewer for the Landscape and Environment small grants scheme.

Professor Lee’s publications include: Demography, Urbanization and Migration, in S Berger (ed) A Companion to Nineteenth-Century Europe, 1789-1914 (2006); “It’s My Park”: Reinterpreting the History of Birkenhead Park within the Context of an Education Outreach Project, The Public Historian in A Journal of Public History (2010) with Karen Tucker; Commerce and Culture: Nineteenth-Century Business Elites (ed) (2011); Networks of Influence and Power: business, culture and identity in Liverpool’s Merchant Community, 1800-1914 (ed) (2012); The Making of Modern Europe: Economy, Society and Culture in the Nineteenth Century (2013); and The People's Garden?: A History of Crime & Policing in Birkenhead Park (2013).

Dr Carole O’Reilly, Lecturer, University of Salford

Carole O’Reilly graduated from the National University of Ireland (Cork) with a BA (Hons) in English & Sociology. Carole O'Reilly received her PhD in 2009 from Manchester Metropolitan University for a thesis on the sale of Heaton Park to Manchester City Council in 1902. Since then, she has published her parks research in journals such as Urban History Review and Urban History and she is currently writing a social history of British public parks titled Greening the City: Urban Parks and Public Culture.

Paul Rabbitts, Environmental Services Client Manager (Parks and Open Spaces) Watford Borough Council

Paul Rabbitts is an experienced public and private sector senior manager now working as a Client Manager responsible for managing large outsourced contracts and partnership covering Parks and Open Spaces for Watford Borough Council. He has extensive experience in the Parks and Recreation sector and has published on various aspects of historical parks, including a history of bandstands (2015) and histories of Hyde Park (2015) and Regent's Park (2013), and in 2016 Great British Parks: A Celebration. 

Lydia Ragoonanan, Programme Manager, Rethinking Parks Programme, Nesta

Lydia Ragoonanan is a strategy, change and innovation professional. Having worked as a Senior Advisor and then Principal Advisor at the Strategy Unit of NZ transport agency and a Team Leader for the London Borough of Camden, in 2013 she was appointed programme manager for the HLF Rethinking Parks project at the National Endowment for Science Technology and the Arts (Nesta).

Others

A number of employees and former employees of local authorities were consulted in the course of this research. Collectively they hold over 200 years’ experience in the sector. The majority of their personal experience relates to post-1960. However, in some instances they were also able to relay the experiences of their predecessors, dating back to early decades of the 20th century. Many wished to remain anonymous. However, their roles and responsibilities ranged from those of Gardener to Local Authority Managers with responsibility for entire park portfolios. Where supported by evidence, their views have been quoted or reflected in the report. Four of the main contributors were provided with a draft of this report for comment and endorsed its findings.

Historic England - Jenifer White, National Landscape Adviser and Owain Lloyd-James, Historic Environment Intelligence Analyst

Jenifer White is a Historic England National Landscape Adviser. She has
England-wide responsibilities for historic parks and garden conservation planning policy, advice, research and standards and has been involved in public park heritage since 2002.

Owain Lloyd-James advises on local government impacts. His role covers models of local authority services, local capacity, responsibilities of local government, funding of local government, and transfer of assets to community groups.

Historic England’s Historic Parks and Gardens Panel

Historic England’s advisory panel on historic parks and gardens discussed the draft report. In 2015 the membership of the panel was Brian Dix, Rosie Atkins, Johanna Gibbons, Colin Treen and Peter Wilkinson.

Historic England Research and the Historic Environment
 

A good understanding of the historic environment is fundamental to ensuring people appreciate and enjoy their heritage and provides the essential first step towards its effective protection. Historic England works to improve care, understanding and public enjoyment of the historic environment. We undertake and sponsor authoritative research. We develop new approaches to interpreting and protecting heritage and provide high quality expert advice and training. We make the results of our work available through the Historic England Research Report Series, and through journal publications and monographs. Our online magazine Historic England Research, which appears twice a year, aims to keep our partners up-to-date with our projects and activities. A full list of Research Reports, with abstracts and information on how to obtain copies, may be found on www.HistoricEngland.org.uk/researchreports .

Some of these reports are interim reports, making the results of specialist investigations available in advance of full publication. They are not usually subject to external refereeing, and their conclusions may sometimes have to be modified in the light of information not available at the time of the investigation. Where no final project report is available, you should consult the author before citing these reports in any publication. Opinions expressed in these reports are those of the author(s) and are not necessarily those of Historic England. The Research Reports database replaces the former: Ancient Monuments Laboratory [AML] Reports Series, The Centre for Archaeology [CfA] Reports Series, The Archaeological Investigation Report Series, The Architectural Investigation Reports Series, and Building Conservation research reports.

ISSN 2059-4453 (Online)