Written evidence submitted by the City of London Corporation [PKS 387]

Submitted by the Office of the City Remembrancer

Introduction

1. The City of London Corporation maintains custodianship of almost 11,000 acres of historic and natural open space for public recreation and health, in and around London. These green spaces, most of which are charitable trusts, are funded principally by the City of London Corporation from its own funds and not from general or local taxation. The open spaces attracted over 23 million visits in 2014/15. They include important wildlife habitats, sites of scientific interest and national nature reserves. The open spaces benefit from significant support received from volunteers – over 50,000 hours each year – on a wide range of activities. The green spaces range from 200 “small” spaces – parks, squares and gardens – within the Square Mile to 14 large spaces outside the City boundaries, including Epping Forest, Hampstead Heath, Queen’s Park, Burnham Beeches, Ashtead and Stoke Commons and West Ham Park, amongst others.

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

2. The cost of collecting data is not insignificant and many bodies responsible for open spaces would not currently have resources to commit to such work. At a national level, the only data readily available and up to date is collected by Natural England[1] and the Heritage Lottery Fund[2]. These reports do not provide comparable data on all parks and open spaces for the United Kingdom. There is no routinely collected data to enable the City of London Corporation to compare its data with others. The introduction of a robust data collection service, managed nationally, would enable more effective strategic planning.

3. In 2013, BOP Consulting undertook research for the City Corporation, Green Spaces: The Benefits for London[3], examined the environmental, health, social and economic benefits that Londoners enjoy from the capital’s green spaces. The report demonstrated evidence for the contribution large green spaces make to people’s physical and mental health and well-being but also highlighted the lack of data to show the benefits of smaller spaces.

4. With the range of open spaces managed by the City of London Corporation, there is the opportunity to compare very different types of open space; from City Gardens in the Square Mile to regionally and nationally significant strategic green spaces including, for example, Epping Forest.

City Gardens

5. The City Gardens were last surveyed during the winter of 2012 by Ask for Research Limited. The survey was undertaken over a 6 week period in November/ December 2015 and involved face to face interviews of over 1,000 visitors profiled from City residents, workers and visitors. The survey was undertaken at differing times of the day and included weekends. The customer profile shows an equal split in gender with a wide profile but focusing on 25-44 year olds. Three in five visitors live in London, one in five live elsewhere in the UK, and one in five live abroad. Only one tenth of these users are local residents.

6. Two thirds of City Gardens’ visitors use open spaces on more than one occasion per annum, with over one third visiting at least weekly. Week day lunchtimes are the main visiting time, and three in five spend under 30 minutes at the space per visit. The frequency of visit reflects the significant level of use by workers, rather than local residents.

Fig 1 – Frequency of visits by users of City Gardens; Ask for Research Ltd commissioned by the City of London Corporation, 2012 and reported January 2013.

7. The survey found that relaxation was the main purpose of visits, and not having time was the main reason given for non-use. When asked, there was strong positive satisfaction with the facilities, but demand for more open space and more green space. Only 11% of those surveyed showed an interest in volunteering.

Fig 2 – Reason for visiting City Gardens; Ask for Research Ltd commissioned by the City of London Corporation, 2012and reported January 20013.

Epping Forest

8. Visitor surveying at Epping Forest was set up to enable observational research to be undertaken in-house with the support of volunteers. A report on the five years of work 2010-14 provides the basis for this summary[4] and has the benefit of comparing results to local census data.

9. The majority of visitors across the whole Forest were in the age range 20-44 (49%) with the substantial majority being white (83%). Some parts of the Forest are more popular with different ages – for example areas providing active sport and training attract younger groups (up to 19 yrs) and visually attractive landscapes attract older ages (45+ yrs). The research did not identify what percentages of visitors were from the local area; however, previous surveys have shown that 95% of visitors live within 2km of the Forest edge.

Fig 3 – Source: Epping Forest Visitor Survey 2014.

Fig 4 – Source: Epping Forest Visitor Survey 2014.

10. The 2014 survey showed that the majority of visits are still either daily or weekly, suggesting that these visits are made up of local and amenity users such as walking the dog or exercising.  The less frequent visits suggest day trippers or people using the Forest as a leisure facility.

11. By comparison, research in January 2015 for an online consultation regarding a request by LB Waltham Forest for natural play provision at Hollow Ponds, Epping Forest showed from the 94 responses that 30% visit twice or more each week, 10% once a week and 40% once or twice a month.

12. Walking and dog walking are main activities identified, with cycling, running, sitting, playing and horse riding also observed. Active pursuits across the Forest (cricket, cycling, running and football) have increased from 21%  to 29% over a 4 year period of surveying ( 2010-2014), demonstrating the value of the Forest as a resource for improving health and fitness.

Fig 5 – Source: Epping Forest Visitor Survey 2014.

13. This survey work compares with information from recent on-line stakeholder consultation on Forest activity; walking 28%, dog walking 12%, cycling 13%, getting fresh air and relaxing 10%, wildlife watching 5%, meeting friends 5%, running 4%, horse riding 2%. The information has been taken from the current profile of stakeholders registered as being interested in Epping Forest[5].

14. It is clear from the data from both City Gardens and Epping Forest that the use of parks and green spaces can vary greatly depending on the local community’s requirements. The frequency of visit in residential areas is a significant part of people’s daily/ weekly life, with the level and type of activity dependent on the size and nature of the space available.  Although these green spaces are clearly highly valued by the communities they serve, the cost of maintaining them and the responsibilities for managing these areas are not understood by the local community. This is not exceptional and is likely to be similar across the UK.

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

15. There have been very few reports and research into this at a national level. Parks Victoria in Australia has led the way and certainly there is very limited strategic planning in the UK between health authorities and local authorities. At a more local level some research has been undertaken – the research undertaken by BOP Consulting for the City[6] demonstrated the contribution large green spaces make to people’s physical and mental health and well-being. The report highlighted the lack of data to show the benefits of smaller spaces.

16. A range of physical and organised recreation is provided across the City Corporation’s sites – from tennis (with recent support from the Lawn Tennis Association) to football at Wanstead Flats, Epping Forest, and cricket at West Ham Park. Cycling has certainly increased in popularity. However, passive physical recreation remains the majority of activity; the most frequent activity is walking and dog walking, but also volunteering, with over 50,000 volunteer hours per annum undertaken on City of London spaces, can also contribute to health and well-being. The benefits of open space to air quality, flood alleviation, impact on biodiversity, the local economy, and climate, could also be considered indirectly contributory to health and well-being, but are not easily measurable. For the City Gardens, previous surveys have shown that relaxation is important. Time in the gardens is likely to improve mental health and, as a counter to this, those who are unable to use the gardens due to lack of time also demonstrates the pressures and stresses of working life. Visitors refer to the value of being able to meet friends and the need for more green space. As City Gardens are only “pocket park” size, there is little opportunity for formal recreation.

17. For Epping Forest, surveys show that both active and passive recreation are major reasons for visiting however, there is no research available to demonstrate the outcomes in terms of improvements to health and wellbeing, only anecdotal reports.

Impact of reductions on local authority budgets for parks

18. Much of the provision for the City’s open spaces is at no cost to the taxpayer and therefore has not been subject to the same pressures of reduction to budgets faced by many local authorities. Nevertheless in line with other charitable trusts, the City of London Corporation has actively sought efficiencies in the delivery of open spaces services – 15% achieved or planned in the last five years. Furthermore, many of the City Corporation’s strategic green spaces are provided within areas where there have been significant cuts.

19. One of the areas where the reduction in local authority budgets has been most visible is in the provision of sporting facilities; traditionally, in the UK, local authorities have subsidised by up to 70% the costs of providing sports pitches and other facilities. The City of London Corporation has noticed increased pressures on its facilities as a result of local authorities reducing their provision and this has gone as far, in some cases, as authorities selling land.

20. From a public perspective, there are increasing fears about the impact of achieving more income from parks services e.g. events and commercialisation. Communities are wary of greater commercialisation and what they perceive this could result in; for example loss of amenity and local community. The City Corporation uses volunteering to help support many of its services, but volunteers have made it very clear that they do not wish to run whole sites or take on further responsibility.

What should the administrative status of parks be in light of declining local authority resources for non-statutory services?

21. The City of London Corporation has historically recognised the value and importance of providing green space for London’s well-being. These sites are protected by individual primary legislation which prevent alienation and define how areas should be managed. Although these date back to the 1870s, and are in need of some modernisation to take into account current needs, they do provide a level of security which many other open spaces do not have.

22. The key to their ongoing care is the core funding provided by the City of London Corporation from property investment income. There are a few other models similar to this across the UK, Milton Keynes being another example. The scale of the sites and budgets enables their continuation. Requiring local authorities to manage open spaces as statutory services would assist, especially where open spaces cross local authority boundaries.

How can new and existing parks best be supported?

23. The key to success is core revenue funding. New and existing parks can deliver some revenue from activity, events, cafes, etc., but with the exception of a few specific sites with special circumstances, there is not normally sufficient potential even with good management, to deliver cost neutral services. Parks are able to obtain funding for capital projects and heritage lottery is exemplary in their support, but even so, a core capital resource of at least 25% of the project value is likely to be required before grant funding can be achieved.

24. Support is also required to ensure the importance of the appropriate skills and training is financially recognised, both for those managing these spaces and for their supporters, including volunteers.

What additional or alternative funding is available and what scope is there for local authorities to generate revenue from park users?

25. As noted in the introduction, the maintenance of the open spaces for which the City is responsible is not publicly funded. The following comments are based on knowledge of the sector and the City’s extensive contacts with local authority custodians.

26. Parks of significant size or with substantial footfall can generate income from cafes, sports activities and events but most parks have already identified potential income opportunities. Depending on the location, income of up to 30% of gross expenditure can be achieved but more than this is only possible in a few exceptions. Smaller spaces and areas surrounded by houses have fewer opportunities.

27. Sport facilities at a local authority level have historically been heavily subsidised, depending on the sport this can be anything up to 90% and frequently more than 50%. This ranges from provision for football, cricket, rugby, tennis, hockey, golf, bowls, athletics and sometimes some lesser known sports.  The introduction of more specialist surfaces has provided opportunities to change funding models. A strategic decision is required as to whether to continue to expect grass root sports to be subsidised. Sport England has recently returned to a strategy of investing in grass roots sport. There is a need for a joined up approach with local services.

28. There is also significant resistance from communities to change and in particular, the “commercialisation” of parks, whether this is charging for use by groups of users, letting facilities to service providers to operate or, introducing new events. There are only a limited number of festivals, fairs etc. which can be accommodated annually without having an impact on soil compaction and nature. Furthermore, events are not guaranteed income generators and their success can be reliant on external factors such as the weather.

29. Country Parks and strategic green spaces have been able to obtain Entry and Higher Level Stewardship funding (ELS and HLS) for locations with important nature conservation value. This 10yr revenue funding can make a substantial difference but is now under threat with the decision to leave the EU.

What are the advantages and disadvantages of other management models such as privatisation, outsourcing, or mutualisation?

30. The City of London Corporation’s model for funding the revenue costs of maintaining 11,000 acres of strategic green space is based on a property investment portfolio, the income from which funds the charitable trusts managing each green space. This provides the core of funding but has to be increased by the use of income from cafes, fees and charges. The City of London Corporation’s strategic green spaces are protected by Parliamentary legislation making them inalienable, so privatisation is not possible. Most communities and public sector authorities would fight any threat of privatisation. A previous attempt by government to privatise the National Forests demonstrates what would happen if there was a similar proposal to privatise parkland more generally. Likewise, the sale or, loss of parks generally creates substantial public opposition.

31. Outsourcing has been used in the past in the Square Mile to reduce the cost of maintaining the City Gardens. However, over a twelve year period and 3 contractors, there was a noticeable reduction in skills and experience of the gardening staff, the quality of the service reduced and there was less public satisfaction with standards of service. Nine years ago, the service was brought back “in-house” with a resulting improvement in all aspects and a reduction in the cost of maintenance. Fundamentally, the cost depends on the specification; the less resources that are committed the more the quality of services and facilities falls. There are some gains in economies of scale but these are not substantial and the whole process of compulsory competitive tendering and more recent tendering have driven out all reasonable efficiencies.

32. One of the major problems facing the sector is the loss of quality staff with experience and skills. It is becoming harder to find people with the right skills to appoint and the public recognise the loss of staff, who in the past would have been located on site, has impacted on vandalism, feeling of safety etc. Staff often act as a 4th emergency service, responding to a wide range of visitor needs, as well as being a listening ear, providing support for the wider community. The City of London Corporation has sought to maintain levels of staff on site, which is not now common in parks.

October 2016