Nonsuch Park

Best Value Review

Report and Improvement Plan

January 2002

Nonsuch Park Best Value Review

REPORT OF REVIEW Executive Summary

The best value review of Nonsuch Park has been undertaken by a team drawn from the two authorities which fund the Park and which manage it through a Joint Management Committee drawn equally from the two authorities.

In undertaking the review, the team commissioned extensive consultation of the many interested parties and made comparisons with other historic parks, notably the National Trust’s Morden Hall Park. The team also looked at current thinking on good practice such as the Green Flag scheme and recent findings of the Urban Green Spaces Task Force and considered the financial arrangements of the Park Joint Management Committee.

This review has highlighted that there is a gap between current thinking on good management of historic country parks and the way Nonsuch Park has been managed in the past. The review puts forward a comprehensive package of proposals which aim to improve the recreational, ecological and historical potential of the Park. These include several proposals which can be implemented quickly at minimal cost and which would produce tangible evidence of the authorities commitment to continuous improvement. In addition, a number of potential sources of income and savings in current expenditure have been identified.

A key finding of the review was that there was no clear policy statement describing the role the Park was intended to fulfil in the community. The review team has drafted the following statement which underpins the recommendations of the review and which is put forward for consideration and agreement by the authorities responsible for the Park:

Nonsuch Park is a place where: • the local community and visitors can enjoy a green oasis with broad appeal • the historical and natural environments are properly cared for • the public can enjoy a range of recreational pursuits without harming the enjoyment of the park by others • every opportunity is taken to provide visitors with an appreciation of the park’s many significant features • the potential for education, interpretation and community involvement is realised • the management is professional and mindful of the park’s primary purpose as a public open space

Finally, an issue which both Epsom & Ewell and Sutton Councils need to address is whether their objectives can best be delivered by transferring management of the Park to a trust (either an established body such as the National Trust or a bespoke trust set up for this Park). The test for this should be whether they feel that the proposals set out in this review and its improvement plan can be delivered by existing arrangements and within resources they feel able to commit to the Park.

Contents

Part One 1. Introduction 2 Context for Review 2. About Nonsuch Park 2 3. Methodology for review 3

Part Two 4. The Policy Context 6 Review Report 5. Review Findings 8 6. Does Nonsuch Park provide 15 “best value”?

Part Three 7. The Improvement Plan 20 Improvement Plan

Appendix 1 Stakeholders Scoping 25 Workshop Appendix 2 Organisations consulted 26 Appendix 3 Report on consultation 27 Appendix 4 Survey Questionnaire 34 Appendix 5 Comparison of historic parks 37 Appendix 6 Challenge paper 39 Plan at end of report

1 Part 1 – Context for the Review 1. Introduction

1.1 This review has been undertaken to satisfy the requirements of the Local Government Act 1999, which requires authorities to demonstrate best value in the services they provide to the public. Nonsuch Park is an open space which is jointly managed and funded by two local authorities, Epsom & Ewell Borough Council and the London Borough of Sutton. This review therefore, forms part of the 2001/2 programme of best value reviews for both councils and its findings will be included in each council’s annual Performance Plan in 2002. The review has been undertaken by a team drawn from both authorities and its conclusions and recommendations will be submitted to both those councils as well as the Joint Management Committee which has responsibility for the management of the Park.

2. About Nonsuch Park

Description of Park 2.1 Nonsuch Park is a 123-hectare open space in the borough of Epsom & Ewell, Surrey on the border with the London Borough of Sutton. The Park was originally part of a large royal park in which Henry VIII reputedly hunted. It subsequently became a private estate. Remains of a mediaeval Banqueting House and the Nonsuch Palace can be found within and adjoining the grounds. Adjoining the Park to the north-east is Cheam Park and Recreation Ground (Sutton) which includes sports pitches and a children’s playground. To the south-east lies Warren Farm, an area managed by the Woodland Trust (see plan at the end of this report)

2.2 Within the Park there is a listed Mansion House (built in the eighteenth century) with associated out-buildings, a number of lodges, an aviary and formal gardens. The Mansion House provides most of the income for the Park (through lettings and income from a catering contract) as well as outgoings (the maintenance of the formal gardens around the Mansion House). Income is also derived from a nursery school in Nursery Lodge.

How and why it was acquired 2.3 In 1937, a consortium of local authorities (London County Council, Surrey County Council, Sutton & Cheam Borough Council and Epsom & Ewell Borough Council) purchased Nonsuch Park and covenanted it for public open space as part of the Green Belt around London . About 40% of the acquisition cost was paid by London County Council with the other three councils each contributing 20%. The land is vested in Surrey County Council on behalf of the consortium.

2.4 The original deeds and covenants drawn up around the time of acquisition of the land in 1937 by the four acquiring authorities, described its intended use as: • “public open space within the meaning of the Open Spaces Act 1906 • public walks & pleasure grounds within the meaning of the Public Health Acts 1875 – 1925

2 • outdoor games or recreation under the Physical Training and Recreation Act 1937” (Deed – 23 rd May 1939)

Management arrangements 2.5 The Park has, for over, 60 years, been managed and maintained by a Joint Management Committee (JMC) comprising an equal number of councillors from Epsom & Ewell and Sutton Borough Councils. The two councils fund, on an equal basis, the running of the Park after taking into account income.

Additional lands 2.6 Recently, other parcels of land (notably the Cherry Orchard site) have been added to the management responsibilities of the J.M.C. Although considered part of the Park, Epsom & Ewell Borough Council retains certain financial responsibilities.

3. Methodology for undertaking review

Joint review team 3.1 Epsom & Ewell Borough Council decided, following an approach by Sutton Council, to exclude Nonsuch Park from their best value review of recreation in order that this review could be undertaken by the two authorities who jointly fund the running of the Park. A joint review team was established in September 2001, comprising: • A councillor from each authority: o Councillor Joan Crowhurst (Sutton) o Councillor David Wood (Epsom & Ewell) • The surveyor to Nonsuch Park JMC: o Stewart Hill (Epsom & Ewell) • Officers from the parks service of each authority: o Stewart Cocker (Epsom & Ewell) o Mark Dalzell (Sutton) • Officers from the corporate centre of each authority: o Chris Morgan (Epsom & Ewell) o Philip Taylor (Sutton) • An independent consultant to lead and co-ordinate the team: o Kevin Ambrose

3.2 The review team agreed, at their first meeting, a programme for progressing the review, the main features of which were: Activity By: Identify key issues & stakeholders September 11 Gather relevant information September 30 Agree scope of review October 9 Agree consultation strategy October 9 Arrange visits and comparisons with other parks October 30 Review findings and hold “Challenge” session November 13 Develop Improvement Plan December 11 Agree conclusions and Improvement Plan January 8 Determining the scope of the review 3.3 At its first meeting, the Review Team identified a range of organisations with an interest in the Park. These were invited to a workshop session at an early stage in the process to identify the key issues to be considered. Fuller details of this are set out in Appendix 1. 3

Statement of scope:- 3.4 These issues were then considered by the Team who drafted a statement setting out the scope of the review for consideration by the various authorities:

The Nonsuch Park Best Value Review will explore, within the constraints imposed by legal covenants and the statutory development plans, the management of buildings and open space which constitutes Nonsuch Park, with particular emphasis on: • The role of the Park in meeting the recreational open space needs of the community • The existing overall management arrangements of the Joint Management Committee • The funding arrangements • The standards and quality of maintenance of the grounds • Public access to and within the Park (including access for those with disabilities) • Conservation of wildlife habitats and the ecology of the Park • Heritage and the part played by ancient and historic buildings within the Park • Awareness of the Park in the community • The maintenance and use of the Mansion House and other buildings

This was considered and agreed by Sutton and Epsom & Ewell Councils plus the Joint Management Committee during October.

Consultation strategy 3.5 Both Sutton and Epsom & Ewell Councils have well-established mechanisms for seeking the views of residents through regular surveys. However, there was relatively little information on the public attitude to Nonsuch Park – particularly in relation to the issues covered by the scoping statement - so the Review Team considered and agreed a consultation strategy. This had five main elements: • A questionnaire survey of park users • A questionnaire leaflet made available in local libraries and schools • An on-line survey on the web sites of Epsom & Ewell and Sutton Councils • Press releases • Letters to all organisations (local, regional and national) likely to have an interest in Nonsuch Park

3.6 A report on the results of this consultation, together with the survey questionnaire, is set out in Appendix 3. The information derived has been a major source of ideas and the proposals incorporated in the Improvement Plan.

Competition issues 3.7 The JMC had let a contract for catering and the facilities management of the Mansion House following a competitive tendering during the summer of 2001, before the review was undertaken.

3.8 Grounds maintenance and park patrolling has never been subjected to a competitive tendering process – having been de minimis under former 4 Compulsory Competitive Tendering regulations. In order to assess the value for money of these activities, the Review Team tested costs against similar services provided by Epsom & Ewell and Sutton parks departments. The exercise was constrained by the lack of any specification or documented maintenance regime for such work at Nonsuch Park.

Comparisons (including visits and research) 3.9 Comparisons were undertaken at two levels: • Comparisons of costs of maintenance with comparable activities in Epsom & Ewell and Sutton parks departments. • A qualitative comparison of features of a range of historic parks (Appendix 4) Findings of these exercises and an analysis is covered in Part 2 of this review report.

Challenge 3.10 The Review Team then considered a paper from the independent consultant to the review, based on the findings of the various initiatives outlined above. This paper, The Best Value Challenge, assessed these findings against a set of basic best value tests (see Appendix 6). The outcome of this exercise has largely informed the main body of this report.

5 Part 2 – Report on the Review

4. The Policy Context

Epsom & Ewell Borough Council Council’s aims & priorities 4.1 Epsom and Ewell Borough Council’s vision is “ to provide a high quality of life for its residents, preserve its traditions, historic character, particularly its open spaces and maintain a thriving local economy” . The Council’s key values are: • commit to the principles of sustainability • listen and respond to the community • provide best value • work in partnership with others • recognise the special needs of vulnerable people All of these are relevant to this analysis of Nonsuch Park

4.2 The Council’s Policy Book 2001/02 includes one objective of relevance to open spaces: “To manage parks, open spaces and countryside of the borough effectively, efficiently and sustainably”. The Council is currently developing a Recreation Strategy.

Sutton Council’s aims & priorities 4.3 Sutton Council publishes an annual Corporate Action Plan. The Plan for 2001-02 sets out six corporate goals, to four of which Nonsuch Park: could make a contribution: • Achieving environmental sustainability (including promoting healthy life styles, and enhancing the environment) • Increasing opportunities for young people (including increasing health, recreation, cultural and informal learning opportunities for young people) • Achieving social inclusion (including promoting equality of opportunity and fair access for those at most risk of social exclusion) • Getting it right (including continuous improvement through effective performance management against national and local targets, best value reviews and recognised quality schemes)

The Council is currently developing a Parks Strategy.

Nonsuch Park JMC aims & priorities 4.4 There is no published mission statement, policies or standards of service regarding Nonsuch Park. The lack of these has made it difficult to assess value for money. The Review puts forward a draft Vision Statement, for early consideration by the JMC and the two authorities concerned. This is seen as a vital foundation for the development of a costed Management Plan for the Park if it is to continue to be run as a separate entity from other parks belonging to these local authorities. National guidance on good practice in park management 6 4.5 The “Green Flag” award scheme (originally developed by the Institute of Leisure and Amenity Management) provides a useful means for assessing how well Nonsuch Park meets accepted standards for parks and open spaces:

The Green Flag Award Scheme: This assesses parks and open spaces against the following criteria: • Welcome (Good & safe access, signage, equal access for all) • Healthy, safe and secure (Safe equipment & facilities, personal security in park) • Clean and well-maintained (Dog fouling, appropriate location & quality of facilities, litter management, grounds, equipment & building maintenance) • Sustainability (use of pesticides & peat, waste minimisation & recycling, energy conservation) • Conservation & Heritage (conservation of natural features, landscape, buildings and structures) • Community Involvement (involvement and appropriate provision for community) • Marketing (marketing, provision of information and promotion of park) • Management (implementation of management plan)

Green Spaces, Better Places Another framework for assessing parks has been developed in the interim report of the Urban Green Spaces Taskforce (Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, November 2001) which put forward the following criteria for good practice: • understand the values, needs and aspirations of local people; • understand the green space site; • form a collaborative and enabling partnership: • develop a clear and shared vision for the space; • secure political and organisational support; • plan sustainable management and maintenance arrangements; • ensure long term viability and sustainability; • recognise and promote (changing) heritage and cultural values; • encourage innovation and learning; and • encourage imaginative play facilities which address a range of needs.

Nonsuch Park has been assessed by the independent consultant against these criteria and the findings are set out in section 6.

5. Findings

5.1 In this section the various themes set out in the scoping statement (para. 3.4) are assessed on the basis of the research undertaken for the review – including consultation and comparative work.

The role of the Park in meeting the recreational open space needs of the community 5.1 Recent surveys from both councils suggest that parks and open spaces are services which are highly valued by the public. Over 85% were fairly or very satisfied with parks and open spaces generally in the 1999 Sutton survey (no figures for individual parks are available). Epsom & Ewell’s 2001 survey 7 showed a similar level of satisfaction with Nonsuch Park. The surveys carried out for this review suggest that visitors are drawn equally from Sutton and Epsom & Ewell areas.

5.2 About two thirds of residents had visited Nonsuch Park in the past year, according to the Epsom & Ewell residents survey 2001, but of these more than half visit the park less than once a month. Nonsuch Park emerged, by a small margin, as the most visited park in Epsom & Ewell. The park user survey suggested that visitors to the Park come roughly equally from Sutton and Epsom & Ewell.

How often do you Daily 4-6 times 1-3 times Once month Never Not Total use a week a week or less aware of counts Nonsuch Park 3.3% 2.1% 9.3% 50.8% 32.2% 2.3% 1198 Source Epsom & Ewell Residents Survey 2001

5.3 The surveys, observations of park usage and an analysis of provision in the locality highlight a number of features which are neither provided in or in the locality of the park. The lack of children’s play facilities was highlighted by a number of survey respondents. Epsom & Ewell Council has confirmed that there is a shortage of playgrounds in the area. It is believed that the JMC has made a decision against providing an adventure playground within the Park. Evidence suggests that the number of families with small children using the park is on the low side. There are no formal sports pitches in the Park. . In Sutton there is an excess of demand over supply of football pitches. Data is not available for Epsom & Ewell as bookings are made with clubs for specific parks rather than individual pitches. There are also pitches provided by private clubs in the area of Nonsuch Park,

The funding arrangements 5.4 Budgets for the JMC are determined each January following consultation with the contributing authorities. Contributions to the JMC have recently been restricted by budget pressures of the two Councils and in particular reflect pressures on the London Borough of Sutton's budget for grants to voluntary organisations. The JMC Treasurer has highlighted the need for a medium term financial plan which will ensure that contributions are matched to JMC objectives and that work currently financed from the reserves can be prioritised without compromising the viability of the facility.

5.5 The proportion of contribution is agreed at 50% from each authority. The level of support has decreased in real terms over recent years:-

1995/96 1996/97 1997/98 1998/99 1999/00 2000/1 2001/2 2002/3 (prob) (est) Total 229,954 238,781 276,943 305,624 267,410 309,880 expenditure Income 90,565 99,979 121,790 119,810 97,440 114,050 Precept 95,000 95,000 80,300 76,800 76,800 76,800 76,800 76,800 (each council) Balance c/f 134,486 149,284 147,732 115,518 99,148 56,918 8

In order to fund current electrical and other works to the Mansion House, the balances, which have been reducing, will on current projections, disappear. Of the £230,000 schedule of works presented to the JMC in October 2000, only £60,000 has been included as either committed or budgeted expenditure. The JMC will not be able to complete the works programme reported (see table below) and, based on current levels of contribution, is unlikely to be able to carry out any major works other than essential electrical works..

Year Work Estimated Total Notes cost (£) estimated cost for year (£) 2001/02 Electrical design 10,000 Carried out in 2001/02 Installation of new 3 phase supply 10,000 47,000 To be carried out in 2002/03 Refurbishment of Deferred Courtyard 27,000 2002/03 Installation of new switchgear and 32,000 distribution system New roof to Units 2 & 3 of Stables & 52,000 Coach House Block 20,000 £8,000 cost in 2000/01 2003/04 Rewire lighting and power (Phase 1) 13,000 Refurbishment of the Tower 36,000 49,000 2004/05 Rewire lighting and power (phase 2) 34,000 Refurbishment of the Clock Room 7,000 41,000 2005/06 Rewire lighting & power (phase 3) 30,000 Refurbishment of the corridor on the first floor of the north wing 11,000 41,000 TOTAL 230,000

5.6 Future projections assume an increasing amount of income from the recently relet catering/Mansion House letting contract. However, this does not cover the expenditure on works already identified as necessary for Mansion House. As this review argues elsewhere, there has not been a comprehensive condition survey for over a decade and it is likely that the total amount of necessary works to ensure the building is brought up to a satisfactory condition will be much greater.

5.7 Epsom & Ewell Borough Council also have commitments in terms of funding the restoration of the scheduled ancient monument associated with Nonsuch Palace (mostly outside the land acquired in 1937). English Heritage has identified this monument as “at risk”.

5.8 On the other hand, there is considerable scope for generating income to balance these likely future commitments. These could include: • Disposal of those buildings and sites which are marginal to the public’s enjoyment of the Park as a whole. An analysis of the benefits of retaining staff accommodation (three lodges and three flats) both for on- site security and as a measure to recruit and retain staff needs to be undertaken.

9 • Epsom & Ewell Council should consider and agree its position on the Cherry Orchard site which. Although currently seen as part of the park for management purposes, is still owned by the council. There is scope for this site to be an income generator compatible with the aims of the Park in similar ways to that of the garden centre at Morden Hall Park • Charging for car parking in the Mansion House car park (this would also have the benefit of encouraging motorists to use the perimeter car parks and limit vehicle movements within the Park) • Promoting the Park and Mansion House as a venue for film and TV productions • Making better use of the Mansion House as a venue for conferences, corporate events and weddings or (if the building is remain closed to the public) consider sale. (It is recognised that this option may be constrained by the recent re-letting of the catering/facilities management contract) • Pursue grant regimes offered by E.C., government and bodies such as the Countryside Agency for implementing ecological and historical proposals in the Improvement Plan. All of these require further analysis and development and are put forward for inclusion in the suggested Management Plan for the Park.

The standards and quality of maintenance of the grounds 5.9 For Nonsuch Park, most ground maintenance is concentrated on the relatively small area of formally planted gardens around the Mansion House. Direct comparisons with other parks cannot be made without and until a full specification has been produced for Nonsuch. A comparison has been made with a similar range of grounds maintenance work elsewhere in Epsom & Ewell and Sutton – but these are indicative only:

Costs per square metre Nonsuch Other E&E As % of Sutton As % of for maintenance activities Park parks Nonsuch Parks Nonsuch costs costs Maintenance of formal areas £0.85 £0.69 81% £1.02 120% (Nonsuch Park = 4.7 (Grange hectares) (cost per sq m.) Park only) Maintenance of informal £0.03 £0.03 100% areas (Nonsuch park = 121.7 hectares) (cost per sq m.) Park patrols, litter & £0.04 £0.0238 59% £0.0726 181% cleaning (cost per sq m.)

Source: Data from Epsom & Ewell Borough Council and LB of Sutton NB These figures are being updated as Sutton data becomes available

5.10 The table suggests that Nonsuch Park is probably spending more than on formal gardens elsewhere in Epsom & Ewell. The higher patrol costs in Sutton reflects the nature of the park police service in that borough.

5.11 This review suggests that the staffing structure should be reviewed in the light of: • The clarification of the purpose and functions of the park

10 • The commitment of the two funding authorities to the development of the Park along the lines set out in the Best Value Review Improvement Plan (including a greater inter-action with the local community) • The approval of a Management Plan for the Park • The adoption of a clear specification of key tasks The Improvement Plan identifies a range of activities, which would require additional skills to those currently available. The evidence gathered by the Review Team suggests that such a restructuring need not involve any additional costs.

Public access to and within the Park (including access for those with disabilities) 5.12 (a) Sign posting. There are few road signs anywhere in Ewell or Cheam directing people to Nonsuch Park. For such a large and historic Park, bought with money to act as a “Green Oasis” for London, with major royal connections and with a designated ancient monument, this is rather surprising . In particular, the three car parks are not signed from London or Ewell Roads. Within the Park, the lack of emergency contact numbers was also noted.

5.13 (b) Access There are three vehicular access points (Cheam Gate, Sparrow Farm and London Road/Ewell) all with car parks. There is a fourth car park near the Mansion House, accessed via a road from Cheam Gate, whilst pedestrians can gain access from a number of other points. Within the Park there is a network of paths, some surfaced with tarmac.

5.14 Concerns were expressed in the public consultation about a number of matters, including: • The volume and speed of cars using the narrow track to the Mansion House which is also used by pedestrians and cyclists • The lack of paved footpaths (suitable for wheelchairs and buggies) in certain parts of the Park, notably along the London Road side, linking the Sparrow Farm and London Road/Ewell entrances, and from Orchard Farm towards the woodland area • The lack of facilities for cyclists to lock their bicycles anywhere in the Park.

5.15 Conflicts between motorists and other park users and between cyclists and pedestrians were cited by a number of park users, suggesting that a network of designated routes for each type of transport would be widely welcomed. A measure proposed in the Improvement Plan is to encourage motorists to use the perimeter car parks by charging for the use of the Mansion House car park but making no charge for the other car parks.

Conservation of wildlife habitats and the ecology of the Park 5.16 By modern standards, there is little to assist park visitors appreciate the varied wildlife offered by what is one of the largest country parks around London. The lack of published information (notice boards or leaflets) about the natural ecology of the park should also be highlighted. A recent leaflet on 11 the Park produced by the Lower Mole Project was not found in any local library or tourist office despite other leaflets on open spaces much further away being available.

5.17 The review team were made aware of discussions with English Nature to create a local nature reserve within the Park. Extensive press coverage during August had misleadingly given the impression that this would entail the closure of a significant part of the park to the public. These reports do not appear to have been rebutted (which illustrates the need for improved public relations capacity for Nonsuch Park) and had an effect on responses to the review team’s own surveys (see report in Appendix 3).

Heritage and the part played by ancient and historic buildings within the Park 5.18 A casual visitor to the Park would have great difficulty in realising that this was a site of major historic significance and of two ancient monuments. There is no external signage pointing to the main historic features and no publicity in either of the two councils or local libraries. Various leaflets were produced in the 1980s, (mostly by Sutton’s Leisure Dept or voluntary groups) but are now no longer available. Other parks with lesser claims make considerably greater efforts both to enhance historic edifices and to provide information about them through interpretation centres, signage, leaflets, guided walks etc.

Awareness of the Park in the community 5.19 It seems likely, from the evidence of the questionnaire survey, that awareness of the Park locally is quite high – but that few people are aware of its history. Awareness of the park further afield is probably very limited – most respondents to the survey came from within a 2-mile radius. It is not clear whether London and Surrey County Councils intended that their investment in purchasing the Park was to serve a wider catchment area – if so this clearly has not materialised. No mechanisms exist for assessing how many people visit the Park – or for determining usage by different groups (such as the young or people with disabilities).

5.20 (a) Publicity. The existence of Nonsuch Park appears to be entirely overlooked in publications of both Sutton and Epsom & Ewell Borough Councils. Features on parks in recent editions of both councils’ magazines made no reference to Nonsuch Park and there were no leaflets on the Park in either council’s reception areas. The web sites, which include much information on parks, again largely ignore Nonsuch Park. This is probably a function of the separate management arrangements for Nonsuch Park – for which neither council’s recreation departments have any responsibility or functional links. The need to be able to respond to enquiries from the public or media washighlighted above in paragraph 5.17

5.21 (b) Links with local organisations . The National Trust’s Morden Hall Park has strong links with the local institutions such as schools, libraries and hotels. In comparison, Nonsuch Park, owned by local authorities, has no 12 such links. The Friends of Nonsuch Park have arranged visits to the service wing of the Mansion House for 15 local schools – eight of which have made return visits – and has also hosted visits from nine other organisations. SCOLA makes some use of the Park on some of their courses, some in conjunction with the Friends. However, in both cases, this is understandably limited by the amount of time and resources available to these bodies. A major question here is how far work with schools and other community organisations should be an integral part of the service provided by Park management itself rather than its tenants or the Friends.

5.22 (c) Volunteer contributions Although there is some voluntary effort in maintaining Nonsuch Park, the use of volunteers at other parks such as Morden Hall Park appeared to be much greater and better integrated with the work of the full time staff. This suggests that the appointment of someone with the ability to develop and support links with local people and organisations such as schools, churches, womens’ groups and bodies involving older people (a major source of volunteers) would increase the public’s appreciation of the assets of the park and encourage greater volunteer effort within the park. This review recommends that consideration should be given to the creation of a general manager post (which includes community liaison as a key role) in the proposed Management Plan. It should be recorded that three local groups (the Friends, Nonsuch Watch and the Nonsuch Antiquarian Society) attend meetings of the JMC as advisers (see also para 5.26).

The maintenance and use of the Mansion House and other buildings 5.23 Significant works to repair and maintain the Mansion House have been undertaken over the past decade. It is part occupied by the Sutton College of Learning for Adults (SCOLA) which has a five year license. The Friends of Nonsuch have a base here although many of their meetings take place at other venues. There are also three flats, two occupied by parks ground staff and one by the catering contractor. However, the house appears very dowdy and much of it is not regularly used. Given its setting and its own potential attractions, it must have considerable potential for greater use for conferences, receptions and other compatible uses than is currently the case. To achieve this would however require greater investment both in promotion and in improving the appearance and facilities of the House. It is recommended that specialist advice is sought on the potential of the Mansion House as an income generator and to widen public access to this significant feature of Nonsuch Park.

The existing overall management arrangements of the Joint Management Committee 5.24 It is difficult to assess how well the Park is managed as there is no published management plan for the Park nor any standards defining the level of maintenance for grounds or the buildings on site. A feasibility study was produced by Chris Blandford Associates (CBA) in September 1998 setting out options for the future development and management of the Park. This study included potential sources of grant. The JMC agreed a series of 13 measures in January 2000 but progress has been limited, particularly on grant aid.

5.25 In terms of managing performance, the very limited data available on non- financial matters highlights a deficiency for decision-makers (the JMC and the two councils) and others to assess how well the park is doing. There is no published performance data on the number of visitors to the park or Mansion House. With regard to performance monitoring, the development of comparators and mechanisms for customer feedback, undertaken for this review, should be adapted as part of regular management reports to the JMC.

5.26 The JMC comprises three councillors (generally those representing local wards) from each council. It is served by officers from Epsom and Ewell providing the clerk, treasurer and surveyor for the JMC. In addition, representatives from the Friends of Nonsuch, Nonsuch Watch and Nonsuch Antiquarian Society are invited to meetings and are allowed to make representations.

5.27 The JMC provides a valuable mechanism for allowing local interests to inform the management and development of the Park and enhances the local democratic role of councillors. However, a number of questions arose during the course of the review: • Is the JMC the right vehicle for ensuring the full potential of the Park is met in meeting the diverse range of public needs and interests? • Is the amount of very senior officer time (notably Chief Executive and Director of Finance) justified for an operation of this size and scale? • Does the JMC have the capacity or resources for taking on change – such as adopting currently accepted standards for managing parks and the Improvement Plan put forward in this review?

14 6. Does Nonsuch Park provide “best value”?

6.1 At one level it would appear that the Park is providing a much-valued facility to local residents. Many of the responses from users of the park and from local residents associations reflect a feeling that the Park meets all their needs and that nothing should be changed. The strength of feeling expressed whenever proposals affecting the park are made (such as recent proposals to establish a nature reserve or even the high response to the surveys undertaken during this review) supports this view.

6.2 However, the findings in section 5 above suggests that on various counts, Nonsuch Park does not stand close comparison with practice elsewhere, such as: • No clear statement of purpose or policies on the range of services and activities to be provided • Lack of a costed Management Plan setting out the future development of services and facilities in the park • Potential of historic legacy largely ignored • No policies or plans for conservation of natural environment • No documented standards against which to judge the quality of services such as grounds maintenance • Poor signage • Limited publicity • Limited links with community and voluntary organisations

6.3 Comparisons with other parks and with current ideas on good management practice for parks and open spaces illustrate just how far Nonsuch Park has lagged behind similar open spaces. The table below is based on criteria developed for the nationally recognised Green Flag award for parks and open spaces and also by the Government Task Force on Green Spaces. Many of these criteria accord with the issues identified during the early consultation with stakeholders and subsequently included in the review’s scope. The scoring in the table has been made on a three-point scale; High, Medium or Low compliance with each criterion.

GREEN FLAG AWARD Criteria Nonsuch Comments Park rating Welcome Little external signage, limited facilities for (Good & safe access, signage, equal access Low disabled, low usage by younger age for all) groups Healthy, safe and secure Staff have patrol duties. No information on (Safe play equipment & facilities, personal Medium contacts in emergencies. No play security in park) equipment to be unsafe! Clean and well-maintained Most of the running costs devoted to (Dog fouling, appropriate location & quality of High formal garden areas which are maintained facilities, litter management, grounds, to high standard. Dog bins and dog free equipment & building maintenance) areas provided. Sustainability A policy banning use of pesticides has (use of pesticides & peat, waste minimisation Medium been implemented and other policies & recycling, energy conservation) relating to sustainability adopted. Conservation & Heritage Little promotion of historic legacy. Local 15 (conservation of natural features, landscape, Low nature reserve proposal not yet buildings and structures) progressed Community Involvement Community involvement not seen as core (involvement and appropriate provision for Low activity – left to voluntary groups to community) arrange Marketing Little or no publicity or information either (marketing, provision of information and Low within Park or elsewhere. No promotion of promotion of park) Park’s many features understand the values, needs and aspirations Medium Park seems to serve selected needs only of local people; – more could be done to attract young, disabled, those interested in historic or ecological legacy of Park understand the green space site; Medium See above form a collaborative and enabling partnership: Medium Friends and other groups accommodated but no pro-active activity by Park authorities to engage with partner agencies. Limited engagement with national bodies (eg English Nature, English Heritage) develop a clear and shared vision for the Low No explicit statement of who the Park is space; for and how it will meet needs secure political and organisational support; Low No Management Plan or medium term financial strategy plan sustainable management and Low Management & maintenance maintenance arrangements; arrangements not specified ensure long term viability and sustainability; Low No long term planning arrangements recognise and promote (changing) heritage Low No engagement with community on part and cultural values; Nonsuch Park could play encourage innovation and learning; and Low Resistance to change and innovation. encourage imaginative play facilities which Low No provision of children’s play facilities address a range of needs (despite lack of such facilities in wider area)

6.4 On 29 th March 2001, the Nonsuch Park JMC considered a report on the requirements of a best value review and identified the following issues to be considered

••• To consider whether the authorities should be supporting this facility This review has highlighted that there is a considerable gap between current thinking on good management of historic country parks and the way Nonsuch Park has been managed. The review puts forward a comprehensive plan, which aims to improve the recreational, ecological and historical potential of the Park. Furthermore, a number of potential sources of income and savings in current expenditure have also been identified. However, the fundamental question is whether the two authorities feel that they can access the necessary expertise and are able to take on the long term commitments for this to happen or whether the future of the Park would be best secured by transferring its management to another organisation (such as an established Trust).

••• To consider the level of which and the way in which the facility is best provided 16 Although the review has put forward a series of recommendations for improvements, there is still a major question to be resolved about the role which Nonsuch park can be developed to meet the open space, recreational and learning needs of the community. This requires clear political direction from the authorities concerned.

••• To consider the Councils' objectives in supporting this facility This is fully covered in section 4, which sets out the two authorities’ mission statements, policy priorities etc.

••• To assess performance in meeting these objectives We have covered this as best as possible with the stated limitations of lack of data and lack of objectives against which to assess performance

••• To compare performance achieved by reference to similar activity carried out by other authorities or organisations This has been fully covered by comparisons with Morden Hall, other country parks and through analyses of costs of grounds maintenance.

••• To ensure an appropriate use of competition is made in service delivery The Management of the facilities of the Mansion House and catering was subjected to competitive tendering in 2001. For the maintenance of the grounds there has been no market testing and there are no specifications. However, the review has raised fundamental issues concerning the appropriateness of current levels of service provision. Only when a clear sense of purpose for the park as a whole has been determined, and clear standards for service delivery specified, will it be possible to test the competitiveness of services provided.

••• To consult with users and other interested individuals and organisations as well as local tax payers. This has been fully addressed through surveys etc. and the results reflected in this report.

17 Part 3 – Nonsuch Park Improvement Plan

7.1 The first issue that needs to be addressed is whether Epsom & Ewell and Sutton Councils wish to retain direct responsibility, via the Joint Management Committee, for the management of the Park. It is suggested that the two councils need to consider and agree what is the purpose of the Park and how far their objectives can be best satisfied by current management arrangements. Many other organisations (such as the National Trust) have very similar aims with regard to historic country parks and arguably access to greater expertise and the ability to achieve economies of scale.

7.2 So perhaps the most important recommendation of all is that the two authorities (Epsom & Ewell BC and Sutton LB) decide on a clear statement of the purpose of Nonsuch Park. The review puts forward, for consideration by all bodies, a vision statement to provide a shared understanding of what the park is for and for whom. The following was drafted by the Review Team and is based on similar statements adopted by comparable country parks:

7.3 In order to help decisions on the appropriate way forward, commensurate with both councils’ obligations under best value legislation, the following diagram sets out the sequence of decisions:

EEBC & LBS agree Statement of

Purpose and Vision for Nonsuch Park

JMC asked to agree and EEBC & LBS decide whether to retain or

progress “quick win” transfer responsibility for Nonsuch improvements Park?

Retain Transfer

JMC instructed to produce & agree Invitations to appropriate Management Plan as effective organisations to express interest Improvement Plan for demonstrating and terms of possible transfer Best Value

EEBC & Sutton approve Management Plan together with medium term financial strategy to underpin plan

7.4 The next most important recommendation (assuming a decision is made to retain management of the Park) is that a Management Plan (supported by a medium term financial commitment) is produced at an early stage. This Management Plan would be based on the range of proposals put forward in this Improvement Plan and would need to be updated as the results of initiatives such as the condition survey of the Mansion House were completed. It proved impossible for the Review Team to identify who should be responsible for implementing most of the review recommendations or the resources required – mainly because of the difficulty in identifying the appropriate staff able to take on responsibilities for implementation and the devolved responsibility for the Park to the JMC. Therefore, most recommendations have been grouped together for inclusion in the proposed Management Plan. It is suggested that this Management Plan should be produced within six months and should initially be largely based on the proposals put forward in this report but with clear identification of responsibilities, target dates for implementation and allocation of resources. 19 The Review team felt that lead responsibility should rest with the Chief Executive of Epsom & Ewell given his additional responsibility as Clerk to the JMC

7.5 The Management Plan should be based on the agreed Statement of Purpose of the Park and should incorporate: • Standards for grounds maintenance o Conservation proposals for park (including nature reserves, historic structures and sites) o Specification of level of service (particularly formal gardens) o Decisions on whether to buy in or grow own plants o Managing donations for seats, trees etc. • Ancient Monuments o Proposals for preservation o Proposals for interpretation/publicising • Park Facilities o New information boards (esp. for historic sites), notice boards, o Cycle parking facilities o Provide a new pathway, separate from road, from Cheam Gate entrance to Mansion House o New pathway Sparrow Farm entrance along London Road side of Park o Upgrading path in woodlands south of Cherry Orchard field • Park Management o Proposals for safe segregation of motor vehicles from other park users (including charging for use of Mansion House car park) o Proposals for cycle lanes on well used paths • Community Liaison o Developing the educational and interpretation aspect of park management o Pro-active work with local community groups o Programme of community consultation developed (including national and regional stakeholders) • Staffing requirements for grounds maintenance o Job profiles o Whether staff are integrated with either council’s workforce or managed separately • Role of Mansion House in relation to aims of the Park o Condition survey and consequent programme of works o Issues of public access o Access by community groups o Should Mansion House be retained or sold/leased? • Other lands o Future of Cherry Orchard site to be determined (either incorporated into Park or sold to generate capital for improvements elsewhere) o Future of other adjoining sites (e.g. “The Avenue” clarified) • Publicity o Leaflets o Web sites o Public & media relations • Access o Provide new footpaths o Regular user surveys (to test satisfaction and ideas for improvement) 20 o Monitoring of usage o Fair access (including by disabled people) • Community Safety o Patrol and security responsibilities o Role of Park accommodation in promoting secure use of park o Emergency contacts • Income generation o Assessment of value of all park property (including rent income, maintenance and improvement requirements, contribution to Park objectives) o Proposals for sale or lease of surplus property o Proposals for Cherry Orchard site developed by Epsom & Ewell BC o Identification of possible schemes for grant aid (including EC, Lottery, Countryside Agency, Land-Fill Tax credits) • Performance Management o Systems for improved accountability identified o Performance management framework developed and monitoring mechanisms established o Key performance indicators identified o Pursuit of recognised quality awards • Resourcing o Revised base revenue budget for running costs of Nonsuch Park devised o Capital Programme developed (informed by condition surveys of Mansion House, Ancient Monuments and other proposals for improvements) o Annual report incorporating accounts to be produced and submitted to all funding authorities

7.6 It is important, however, that the momentum generated during the review, not least by the considerable public interest generated, is not lost. The Review Team put forward therefore a number of visible and measurable improvements that could be implemented within a short space of time. These are put forward for agreement by the Joint Management Committee, which is asked to agree that they be progressed immediately and progress reported at each of its subsequent meetings: • House style to be developed for all publicity (notice boards, leaflets, web sites) • Information on Park to be included on councils’ web sites • Leaflets to be updated and made available at local information centres, council offices etc. • Road signs indicating car park entrances to be installed • Proposals in CBA report (including those involving grant aid) to be pursued

21 APPENDIX 1

Stakeholders Scoping Workshop

9th October 2001

Present: Frances Wright Nonsuch Watch Charles Abdy Nonsuch Antiquarian Society Peter Kinton Friends of Nonsuch Gerald Smith Friends of Nonsuch Margaret White Sutton College of Learning for Adults (occupies part of Mansion House) Genefer Espejo Head, Nonsuch High School for Girls John Edwards Surrey County Council Alan Knight Park Superintendent Stewart Hill Epsom Access Group and Nonsuch JMC Surveyor Lesley Danbury Councillor (E. & E.) Nonsuch Ward Ruby Smith Councillor (E. & E.) Stoneleigh Ward

Members of Review Team present: Councillor Joan Crowhurst LB Sutton Councillor David Wood Epsom & Ewell BC Chris Morgan EEBC Stewart Cocker EEBC Philip Taylor LBS Kevin Ambrose Consultant and facilitator for workshop

Methodology Kevin Ambrose introduced the session by providing a background to the requirements of best value legislation and the type of matters to be considered in a best value review.

Everyone present was then asked to identify what they individually felt were the main issues on “post-it” notes, which were then displayed. Everyone present then discussed these issues and grouped them into main themes. These were: • What is the principal purpose of the Park? The role of the Park in meeting the recreational open space needs of the community • The existing overall management arrangements of the Joint Management Committee • The funding arrangements • The standards and quality of maintenance of the grounds • Public access to and within the Park (including access for those with disabilities, and restrictions on motor vehicles and car parking) • Conservation of wildlife habitats and the ecology of the Park • Heritage and the part played by ancient and historic buildings within the Park (including more recognition of the Palace site) • Awareness of the Park in the community • The maintenance and use of the Mansion House, aviary and other buildings

Kevin Ambrose then thanked everyone for their contributions and outlined the future programme of the review (including further consultation|).

22 APPENDIX 2

ORGANISATIONS CONSULTED DURING REVIEW

Type of organisation Organisation Response Received Park based Groups Friends of Nonsuch v Nonsuch Watch v Nonsuch Antiquarian Society v Staff Park Superintendent Tenants SCOLA v Residents Associations Belmont and South Cheam Residents Association v Peaches Close Residents Association Worcester Park Residents Association Stoneleigh Residents Association Howell Hill Residents Association v Ewell Village Residents Association v Ewell Downs Residents Association Nonsuch Residents Association Other local organisations Nonsuch High School Regional Bodies Surrey County Council (Legal Dept.) Surrey County Council (Ecology Section) v Cyclists Touring Club (SW London branch) v National Organisations The Open Spaces Society v National Trust English Nature English Heritage The Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings Countryside Commission

23 APPENDIX 3

REPORT ON CONSULTATION

This report provides an overview of the feedback from the consultation and questionnaire survey undertaken during November 2001.

Consultation Methodology The best value review team agreed a consultation strategy consisting of four main elements: • A questionnaire survey of users in Nonsuch Park (undertaken by Park staff and members of volunteer groups such as the Friends and the Nonsuch Watch) • A similar questionnaire provided in local libraries and on the web sites of Sutton and Epsom & Ewell Councils to allow the wider public to make comments • Letters to a range of stakeholders (both statutory and voluntary groups) • Publicity in local media

QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEY

Level of response There was a very high level of response to the questionnaires, especially given the very limited time in which to undertake the exercise. Some 961 park users responses were recorded by the deadline and a further 150 questionnaires were returned by people who picked up the questionnaire at their local library. One respondent also sent in a ten-page submission outlining a range of initiatives covering the environmental, historical and recreational aspects of the Park. This demonstrates the high level of interest in the Park – though it must be added that recent publicity about the future of the Park plus evidence that individuals attempted to bring pressure on respondents needs to be taken into account.

A variety of responses have been received to the letter to stakeholders and these are also covered in this report.

Who responded? The survey questionnaire included a number of demographic questions to identify the range of people responding. These are summarised in the table below:

Who responded? Park % Library % Males 43.5 48.7 Females 53.1 51.3 Under 18 1.1 4.0 18-34 12.0 14.0 35-64 61.0 58.7 65+ 22.4 22.7 Employed 48.4 26.7 Retired 32.8 44.0 People with a disability 7.6 11.3 Ethnic origin – white British 85.7 88.7 Place of residence – SM 1,2,3,7 postcodes (mainly Sutton) 42.4 44.7 Place of residence – KT 4, 17,18,19 postcodes (mainly E & Ewell) 36.4 44.7 Method of travel to park - walk 31.5 43.3 Method of travel to park – car 68.5 39.3 Method of travel to park – bicycle 9.8 26.0 Method of travel to park – public transport 2.8 4.7 Those responding to the survey were overwhelmingly middle aged or older and lived within two miles of the park. One third of those interviewed in the park (and over 40% of library 24 respondents) were retired. Two thirds of park users travelled to the park by car whereas most (43.3%) of those responding via the libraries walked. The other significant variation between the surveys is that 26% of those responding from the libraries cycled to the park compared with less than 10% of Park users. Park usage from the two boroughs appears equally split – though probably more come from Sutton than Ewell the KT4 postcode being divided between the two boroughs).

Usage of the Park The survey looked at frequency of, and the reasons for, visits.

Frequency of visit Park Library % % Visit – every day 38.4 14.7 Visit – at least once a week 30.8 46.7 Visit – at least once a month 21.5 25.3

This reinforces the impression from the previous table that the park is mainly used by local, older people who live fairly near to the park and who visit very regularly.

Park usage Park Library % % Reason – walk dog 52.1 21.3 Reason – walking in safe, open area 46.9 44.7 Reason – observe nature 38.5 60.7 Reason – other reason 14.4 16.7

The reason for the frequency of visits becomes clearer from these results – most people use the park as part of a daily routine of walking their dogs. Over half of those interviewed in the park were there for this reason. There are some interesting variations in reasons between those completing the library survey and those in the park. The considerable number of respondents who reported that they had been told how to complete the form could explain the variation in the “observe nature” category. One recorded that they were told “not to put down that I loved the birds as this would be taken as a wish for a local nature reserve which she said would mean closure of the park”.

Among the long list of other reasons mentioned, were: • Safe place for children to play/ride bikes • Safe place to take wheelchairs/buggies • Events at Mansion House (including SCOLA) • Meeting at coffee bar

Ideas for improvement Respondents were asked to put forward any ideas they might have for improving the park. A large number of respondents answered that they were happy with the park as it is.

However, a large number of very worthwhile suggestions were put forward and the list below attempts to group these into the categories agreed for the scope of the review.

Recreation and open space needs of the community • Childrens’ play area (near London Road car park mentioned several times) • Separate cycle and pedestrian tracks • More park benches • Sports facilities

25 Public access to and within the Park (including access for those with disabilities) • Better signage outside and inside park • More visible security and park patrols • Better lighting (particularly around car park near mansion House) • Tackle dog fouling

Conservation of wildlife habitats and the ecology of the Park • Create local nature reserve • Don’t create local nature reserve • Restoration of hay meadow • Introduce deer

Heritage and the part played by ancient and historic buildings within the Park • Notice boards highlighting historical legacy of park • Leaflets on historic aspects of park • Restoration of house, stables, toilets and chapel in Mansion House • Mark out site of Nonsuch Palace

Awareness of the Park in the community • External signage

The maintenance and use of the Mansion House, aviary and other buildings • Public access to Mansion House • Jazz evenings and other events in and around Mansion House • Close aviary • Litter at café • Limited opening of café (particularly in winter months)

The existing overall management arrangements of the Joint Management Committee • Cherry Orchard to be incorporated into park • Circular walk around park

The funding arrangements • More funding for restoration and staff (particularly park patrols)

The standards and quality of maintenance of the grounds • Balancing pond to be made a water feature • Dog washing facilities • Enhance formal gardens • Reduce formal gardens

In addition, a number of conflicts between existing users were identified • Dog and non-dog owners (particularly concerning fouling) • Car/pedestrian conflicts (particularly on road to Mansion House) • Pedestrian/cycling conflicts

RESPONSES FROM STAKEHOLDERS Letters were sent to a range of stakeholders, including local residents associations, other local organisations and national bodies with an interest in parks and open spaces. Responses have been received from: • Nonsuch Antiquarian Society 26 • Nonsuch Watch • Friends of Nonsuch • Surrey County Council Conservation Group • The Open Spaces Society • Cycling Tourists Club (S.W. London branch) • SCOLA • Ewell Village Residents Association • Howell Hill Residents Association • Belmont & South Cheam Residents Association

The views expressed are summarised below:

The Nonsuch Antiquarian Society This group felt that residents are not fully aware of the Park, its features, facilities and history and proposes the following improvements: • Leaflet on the park to give a brief history and map indicating points of special interest • Display panels in the Mansion to explain the significance of the park and Nonsuch Palace • The foundations of the Palace should be more clearly marked

The Friends of Nonsuch • Better security measures to counter vandalism • Park in its present form satisfies a huge number of residents • Mansion House history and qualities not fully realised • Potential of park for educational appreciation (particularly National Curriculum) • Against a childrens’ play area • Improve the opening hours of café • Install lighting of Mansion House car park • Expresses concern about attitude of two funding councils, particularly the lack of needed investment

Nonsuch Watch • Concern that survey results would be distorted by “untrue information that up to 75% of the park being closed” if a nature reserve was created Nature Conservation: • Park has potential as a place of beauty, rest and peacefulness • Do not agree with commercial heritage promotion – concern that this would mean mass tourism • Maintenance of the diversity of species and habitats should underlie management. The group would like the plan advised by Dr. Peter Moore in 1990 and 1994 to be continued • Support Local Nature Reserve status and leave certain areas undisturbed and wild • Late cutting of grass etc appreciated as many birds and insects have benefited. • Footpaths should be planned to avoid sensitive areas • The approach should be in accordance with biodiversity and LA21 principles Staffing • Staff needed to manage diversity of wildlife habitat – not just gardeners • Trained rangers to improve the balance between biology trained staff and traditional gardening and security patrolling

27 Bins • More litter and dog bins especially along the Avenue Landscape • Landscape should be considered before deciding where to plant trees JMC • Discussions at JMC meetings should be more balanced between groups so that some groups do not feel second class Awareness • Feel that efforts of Friends and Nonsuch Antiquarians at Bourne Hall are prominent and successful • Do not favour more notices unless for safety reasons Access • Concern about number of cars going to centre of park • Concern that Cheam Gate overflow car park becoming permanent • Need for somewhere safe to leave bikes • New footpaths to be constructed from natural materials • No formal footpaths through woods

Surrey County Council – Conservation Group • Park has regional significance for informal recreation, nature conservation and its historic landscape • Management of Park seems low key aimed only at local people • Need to agree what Park is being managed for • Surrey County Council as major purchaser should be represented in management • Low level of awareness of park features, facilities and history among residents • Park would make excellent Local Nature Reserve and conflicts can be easily resolved • Banqueting House identified by English Heritage as at “immediate risk of further rapid deterioration or loss of fabric” • Little indication locally that Nonsuch Park exists – need for better links with Ewell village

The Open Spaces Society Consulted members in the area and commented: • Park has appropriate mix of wild life and garden areas • Is open during daylight areas and with adequate car-parking and three access points • Residents appear to be aware of the park but not of its facilities and history – notice-boards and maps at entrances would be helpful • Balance seems right between provision of facilities and not being over managed and administered • Concern expressed about threat to park in view of the demand for housing

Cyclists Touring Club (CTC) South West London branch • Value park and have run beginners’ rides over past 6 years • Proposals for improved access at both London Road entrances made safer by designated shared use of footways by cycles and pedestrians • Dangerous “up-stand “ on London Road (Sparrow Farm) entrance (resulting in accidents to cyclists) • Improve access from Vicarage Lane for cyclists and families with push-chairs • Clarification of position on proposals from Chris Blandford Associates report needed 28 • Clarification on stories about Park being taken over by English Nature needed

Sutton College of Learning for Adults (SCOLA) • Additional pathways around perimeter of the park • Improved drainage from Ewell Gate to Mansion House • Improved directional signposts indicating facilities within Park • Small play area to attract families to Park • Secure cycle racks, particularly near mansion House • Separate pathway from roadway for pedestrian safety

Ewell Village Residents Association • General view of committee “the park is well managed – please leave it as it is” • Essential charm of Nonsuch Park is the opportunity for individuals to walk quietly doing “their own thing” • Difficult to assess if residents are aware of Park’s history etc - colour brochures in local libraries would be beneficial • Highly visual presence of rangers and other uniformed security staff to counter vandalism and anti-social behaviour • Congratulations to those involved in Park’s upkeep

Howell Hill Residents’ Association • Generally satisfied with arrangements • Concern about apparent reduction in clearing paths of leaves etc. (and effect on elderly visitors) • Concern about increased use of Mansion House car park and speeding by cars accessing this car park.

Belmont & South Cheam Residents Association • Park a great asset for walking dogs, enjoying gardens, sitting in peace and a safe area for children to play • Would like to see more done for children: aviary reopened? • Establishment of nature trails • “Let Nonsuch be a positive delight for all ages”

Conclusions The survey proved to be a very worthwhile exercise. Much of what it revealed will come as no surprise to those involved with the park. However, the broad range of suggestions for improvements provides a valuable aid for the forthcoming discussions on the best value review’s Improvement Plan.

The survey and the responses to the letter to interested organisations raise a number of issues about the purpose and use of the park which the authorities need to consider, not least the impression that it is used overwhelmingly by older people, dog walkers and those using cars to get to the park. These need to be considered in relation to the purpose for which the park was acquired, the councils’ own recreation strategies and their environmental policies. Acknowledgements Appreciation must be expressed not only to the many people who took the time to compete the survey but particularly to those who made the necessary arrangements in the very limited time available; Stewart Hill and the staff at Nonsuch Park, together with the Friends and Nonsuch Watch, who undertook the survey in the park and Philip Taylor, Stewart

29 Cocker and Keith Horner who arranged the library and web-site surveys and the letter to interested organisations.

30 APPENDIX 4

SURVEY OF VISITORS TO NONSUCH PARK

Q1 How frequently, if at all, do you use Nonsuch Park

Almost every At least About Within the last Within the Longer Never I don’t day once a once a 6 months last year ago used know week month

Q2a What is the main reason for your visits?

Walking in Run/Jog Walk dog Observe nature Other safe open area (plants, birds etc)

Q2b If other reason, please write in:

……………………………………………………………………………………………

Q3a What do you particularly like about the Park?

Peace & quiet Landscape Facilities (Mansion House, Other reason Car-park, refreshments)

Q3b If other reason, please write in:

……………………………………………………………………………………………

Q4 What single initiative would improve the Park in your opinion (please specify )?

………………………………………………………………………………………….

ABOUT YOURSELF:

31 Q5 Gender: Male Female

Q6 Age Under 18 18 – 34 35 – 65 Over 65

Q7 Employment: Which of these activities best describes what you are doing at present?

Full-time education Employed Unemployed Retired

Q8 Disability: Do you have any long-standing illness, disability or infirmity? (long-standing means anything that has troubled you over a period of time or that is likely to affect you over a period of time)

Yes No

Q9 Ethnic Origin

White Mixed race Asian Black Chinese British White/Black Indian Caribbean Chinese Caribbean Irish White/Black/Africa Pakistani African Other n Other White/Asian Bangladeshi Other Other Other

Q10 Place of Residence Please give the first part of your post code (e.g. KT17)

………………………………………….

Q11 How do you normally get to Nonsuch Park:

Walk Bicycle Car Public transport Other

Thank you for completing this questionnaire

32 APPENDIX 5

COMPARISONS OF HISTORIC PARKS

Features Nonsuch Morden Painshill Osterley Kenwood Hadleigh Tonbridge Hylands Park Hall Park Park Park House Castle Castle Country Park Size: acres (hectares) 304 (123) 110 (45) 160 (64.8) 433 (175) Ownership Joint local National Private trust National Trust English Essex CC Tonbridge & Chelmsford authorities Trust Heritage Malling B.C. B.C. Opening Always Always 5-6 days a Always Daylight Daylight hours Daylight hours Daylight week hours hours Historic house (listed) v v v v v v (Grade II*) (restaurant) Disabled access to house v v (ground v floor) Ancient Monument v v Car parks 3 1 1 1 1 1 Interpretation centre - v v v v v v Ranger service v Guided tours v Web Site v v v v v v v Café opening Seasonal All year April - Dec All year Sundays all year

Access costs Nonsuch Morden Painshill Osterley Kenwood Hadleigh Tonbridge Hylands Park Hall Park Park Park House Castle Castle Entry charge to park Free Free £4.20 Free Free Free Free Free Entry fee for House – no House – no N/a £4.30 Free Free £3 £3 house/garden access access Garden - free Garden - free Car park fee Free Free Free Free No car park £1..20 (weekends)

33 Sources of Nonsuch Morden Painshill Osterley Kenwood Hadleigh Tonbridge Hylands income Park Hall Park Park Park House Castle Castle Shop v v v Garden centre v Film/TV rights v v Leasing out property v v (Tourism Office) Hire of space for v v v v v functions (weddings, conferences etc.) Fee fro weddings £350 - £550 Hire of whole £4,114 house/day Exhibitions v v v v

Restrictions on Nonsuch Morden Painshill Osterley Kenwood Hadleigh Tonbridge Hylands Dogs Park Hall Park Park Park House Castle Castle Dogs Some dog free Some dog No dogs Only on leads Only on areas free areas allowed leads

Sources: Web sites, brochures, interviews

34 APPENDIX 6

“Nonsuch Park” Best Value Review

THE BEST VALUE CHALLENGE

Background This paper has been produced for the Nonsuch Park Best Value Review Team. It is based on evidence gathered: • from the data collection exercise carried out in the early stages of the review • from the findings of borough wide attitude surveys carried out by both Sutton and Epsom & Ewell Brou8gh Councils in the last two years • From comparisons with comparable country parks, including a visit by the Review Team to the National Trust’s Morden Hall Park

This paper puts forward the initial findings and views of the independent consultant commissioned to lead the review. It has been informed by comments of the Review Team but, at this stage, should not be taken as representing the views of the team. The paper does however, illustrate the main lines of inquiry of the review.

The “Challenge” process is a vital part of the Best Value regime. Authorities are asked to question why they are delivering a particular service, whether some other organisation can do it better or if it is to continue to be delivered by the authority, how it can be improved. The Best Value Inspectors will be looking for evidence that these questions have been satisfactorily addressed in a council’s Best Value Review. This paper assesses the operation of Nonsuch Park against eight “challenge” questions of Best Value. These are based on the legislation and guidance to local authorities when undertaking Best Value reviews.

1. What is the rationale for this service?

There does not appear to be any published policy, mission or strategic objective for Nonsuch Park. Perhaps because of its “arms-length” relationship with the two funding councils, the park does not seem to feature very highly in any corporate policy statements or recreation strategies.

The only indication of the purpose of the Park lies in the original deeds and covenants drawn up around the time of acquisition of the land in 1937 by the four acquiring authorities (London County Council, Surrey County Council, Epsom & Ewell Borough Council and Sutton & Cheam Borough Council). This is described as: • “public open space within the meaning of the Open Spaces Act 1906

35 • public walks & pleasure grounds within the meaning of the Public Health Acts 1875 – 1925 • outdoor games or recreation under the Physical Training and Recreation Act 1937” (Deed – 23 rd May 1939)

Local controversies about possible schemes to enhance features of the Park seem to have to have made decision-makers very cautious about innovation or improvements in the way the Park is managed for the wider enjoyment of the public. Various initiatives (e.g. the recent consideration of the establishment of a nature reserve in the park or the study undertaken by Chris Blandford Associates) to safeguard and enhance the historic and natural features of Nonsuch Park have not been progressed and no alternative actions have been identified. This suggests that neither the Joint Management Committee nor the two funding councils have a clear idea of their vision and direction for the park.

2. How is this service currently performing? The public perspective At one level it would appear that the Park is providing a much-valued facility to local residents. The strength of feeling expressed whenever proposals affecting the park are made (e.g. the CBA scheme mentioned above or proposals for the Cherry Orchard site) supports this view.

However, there has not been any attempt in the past to establish systematically what the public (users, non-users, those living nearby and those in the wider catchment area) expect of the Park or how it could be improved to increase its attractiveness.

Both Sutton and Epsom & Ewell Councils have well-established mechanisms for seeking the views of residents through regular surveys. Recent surveys from both councils suggest that parks and open spaces are services which are highly valued by the public. Over 85% were fairly or very satisfied with parks and open spaces generally in the 1999 Sutton survey (no figures for individual parks are available). Epsom & Ewell’s 2001 survey showed a similar level of satisfaction with Nonsuch Park.

However, visits by residents to the Park do not appear to be very high. Less than 12% of residents in Epsom & Ewell had visited Nonsuch Park, according to the 2001 survey, and of these around half visit the park less than once a month. (It has to be said that Nonsuch Park did emerge, by a small margin, as the most visited park in Epsom & Ewell)

How often do Daily 4-6 1-3 Once Never Not Total you use times times month aware counts a a or less of week week Nonsuch 3.3% 2.1% 9.3% 50.8% 32.2% 2.3% 1198 Park

Source Epsom & Ewell Residents Survey 2001

This suggests that action needs to be taken to find out what could make the park more attractive so that it can achieve the objective of the purchasing authorities to provide a “Green Lung” for the built up areas of London and Surrey.

The review team have made a start on this by undertaking a quick survey of park users, complemented with a questionnaire survey promoted through local libraries and on the two councils’ web sites. Over 1,200 responses were received and this is assisting in shaping the Improvement Plan being developed by the Review Team.

The management perspective It is difficult to assess how well the Park is managed as there is no published management plan for the Park nor any standards defining the level of maintenance for grounds or the buildings on site.

Although there is no directly comparable open space within the two boroughs, some comparisons of costs of the different types of grounds maintenance have been made (see table below).

For Nonsuch Park, most ground maintenance is concentrated on the relatively small area of formally planted gardens around the Mansion House. Assuming that approximately 80% of the budget is used in this way, the following comparison can be made with similar grounds maintenance in Epsom & Ewell:

Nonsuch Other As % of Park E&E Nonsuch parks costs Maintenance of formal areas £0.85 £0.49 57.6% (Nonsuch Park = 4.7 hectares) (cost per sq m.) Maintenance of informal areas £0.03 £0.0041 12.8% (Nonsuch park = 121.7 hectares) (cost per sq m.) Source: Da data from Epsom & Ewell Borough Council NB These figures are being updated as Sutton data becomes available The table suggests that Nonsuch Park is spending about double the amount spent on formal gardens elsewhere in Epsom & Ewell and 8 times more than 37 parklands elsewhere. Preliminary analysis suggests that Nonsuch Park costs are similarly higher than those in Sutton.

The visit by the Nonsuch Park Best Value Team to the National Trust’s Morden Hall Park provided an insight into an alternative approach to managing a park based on an historic house and gardens. This park (covering about 50 hectares with a mix of formal gardens, open land and protected habitats) has just one paid gardener (compared with 6 grounds maintenance staff for just over 120 hectares at Nonsuch Park). The total on-site staffing of Morden Hall Park is four people (warden, education officer, property manager and administrative officer). Three of these live on site and are contracted to maintain 24 hour/7 day cover. At Nonsuch Park 5 staff live on site but although they are “on call”, this arrangement has not been formalised. It is known that there have been occasions when the E. & E Ranger service has had to be called out to answer out of hours calls.

There are no published performance data on the number of visitors to the Park or Mansion House.

3. How should the service be performing in the future? Comparisons with other similar “country parks” suggests a number of ways in which Nonsuch Park could be managed to achieve the purposes for which it was acquired:

• Clear statement of purpose and standards for service delivery. This is needed to address the lack of published vision of what the park is there to achieve for the funding councils to have a clear basis on which to make decisions on the budget. Such a statement would also serve to guide investment decisions and what appear to be difficult decisions on developments in and around the Park. There are references in the corporate plans of the two authorities which are relevant here, including: “increase the levels of participation in sport, recreation and arts focusing especially on those socially excluded, ethnic minority groups, over 50s and disabled people” (L.B. Sutton Corporate Action Plans 2001-2). The Epsom and Ewell Council vision includes a statement about preserving its “traditions, historic character particularly its open spaces.”

(NB The Review Team has since agreed a draft Mission Statement for the Park for consideration by the JMC and the two councils:

“Nonsuch Park is a place where: • the local community and visitors can enjoy a green oasis with broad appeal • the historical and natural environments are properly cared for • the public can enjoy a range of recreational pursuits without harming the enjoyment of the park by others • every opportunity is taken to provide visitors with an appreciation of the park’s many significant features

38 • the potential for education, interpretation and community partnerships is realised • the management is professional and mindful of the park’s primary purpose as a public open space

• Greater financial certainty. With budgets only determined weeks before the beginning of each financial year, it is not surprising that little long term planning has been undertaken. Current ideas on good practice, applied by most authorities in relation to grants to voluntary organisations, suggest that there should be a medium term financial strategy to which both funding councils commit.

••• Introduction of regular performance monitoring. The very limited data available on non-financial matters highlights a deficiency for decision- makers (JMC and councils) and others to assess how well the park is doing. The lack of a clear policy framework and performance standards is also problematic. The development of comparators and mechanisms for customer feedback, undertaken for this review, should be adopted as part of regular management reports to the JMC.

• Condition and occupancy of the Mansion House. Significant works to repair and maintain the Mansion House have been undertaken over the past decade. It is part occupied by the Sutton College of Learning for Adults (SCOLA). The Friends of Nonsuch have a base here although many of their meetings take place at other venues. There are also three flats, two occupied by parks ground staff and one by the catering contractor. However, the house appears very dowdy and much of it is not regularly used. Given its setting and its own potential attractions, it must have considerable potential for greater use for conferences, receptions and other compatible uses than is currently the case. To achieve this would however require greater investment both in promotion and in improving the appearance and facilities of the House.

• Better sign posting. There are few road signs anywhere in Ewell or Cheam directing people to Nonsuch Park. For such a large and historic Park, bought with money to act as a “Green Oasis” for London, with major royal connections and with a designated ancient monument, this is most surprising .

••• Better publicity. The existence of Nonsuch Park appears to be entirely overlooked in publications of both Sutton and Epsom & Ewell Borough Councils. Features on parks in recent editions of both councils’ magazines made no reference to Nonsuch Park and there were no leaflets on the Park in either council’s reception areas. The web sites, which include much information on parks, again largely ignore Nonsuch Park. This is probably a function of the separate management arrangements for Nonsuch Park – for which neither council’s recreation departments have any responsibility or functional links.

••• More pro-active links with local organisations . The National Trust’s Morden Hall Park has strong links with the local institutions such as schools, libraries and hotels despite being owned and managed by a national charity. Nonsuch Park, owned by local authorities, has no such links! The Friends of Nonsuch Park have had contact with local schools and SCOLA makes some use of the Park on some of their courses. However, in both cases, this is understandably limited by the amount of time and resources available to these bodies and in comparison with the extent found in other historic country parks. The major question here is how far work with schools and other community organisations should be an integral part of the service provided by the Park itself rather than its tenants.

Although there is some voluntary effort in maintaining Nonsuch Park, the use of volunteers at Morden Hall Park appeared to be much greater and better integrated with the work of the full time staff. This suggests that the appointment of someone with the ability to develop and support links with local people and organisations such as schools, churches, womens’ groups and bodies involving older people (a major source of volunteers) would increase the public’s appreciation of the assets of the park and encourage greater volunteer effort within the park.

••• Promoting the historic legacy of the Park. A casual visitor to the Park (assuming they found it!) would have great difficulty in realising that this was a site of major historic significance and of two ancient monuments. There is no external signage pointing to the main historic features and no publicity in either of the two councils or local libraries. Various leaflets were produced many years ago, (mostly be Sutton’s Leisure Dept or voluntary groups) but are now no longer available. Other parks with lesser claims make considerably greater efforts both to enhance historic edifices and to provide information about them through interpretation centres, signage, leaflets, guided walks etc.

••• Promoting an environmental appreciation of the Park. A similar point can be made regarding the natural environment of the park. Yet Sutton Council’s Corporate Action Plan 2001-2 includes a target of “maintaining biodiversity and conserve natural resources by safeguarding wildlife habitats and protect and enhance the quality of landscape and green space.” Interestingly, Morden Hall park – though less than half the size of Nonsuch park – has developed such wildlife habitats (notably a wetland area) without any diminution of the public accessibility to the park. The criticism about the lack of published information can also be made about the natural ecology of the park can be made. A recent leaflet produced by the Lower Mole Project was not found in any local library or tourist office despite other leaflets on open spaces much further away being available.

4. How significant is the gap between current and expected performance? 40 The responses to this question summarise the findings put forward in the previous sections. Significant variations between Nonsuch Park and other parks include: • High grounds maintenance costs • Minimal publicity • Low profile in the community • No safeguarded natural habitats • Little recognition or promotion of historic significance of Park • Poor maintenance of nationally scheduled ancient monuments • Under developed links with schools and other community organisations • No clear planning or performance management framework • Lack of a Management Plan for the Park • No medium term (three – four years) budgeting • Disproportionate amount of senior officer and elected member time devoted to day to day management.

5. What action needs to be taken to bridge this gap?

The Review Team is scheduled to consider what should be included in the Improvement Plan at its December meeting. This will be submitted to a joint meeting of the Scrutiny Committees of both Sutton and Epsom & Ewell Councils on 16 th January and top the JMC on the 17 th January.

6. Does the service have the internal capacity to bridge this performance gap?

The Review Team has been considering this in the light of past performance, comparisons with other historic country parks and the number of potentially difficult decisions necessary if the park is to achieve its potential. The answer to this question will probably depend on how far the two funding councils support the proposals to be put forward in the Improvement Plan in addressing the findings set out earlier in this paper.

7. What alternative methods are available for delivering this service to the expected standard and what is the best option?

The Review team has considered whether the park should continue to be managed by a joint committee of the two authorities or whether an alternative model (e.g. A bespoke Trust or a national body with similar aims and objectives such as the National Trust) be pursued. The team does not feel able to put forward a recommendation on this, feeling that this should be for the two funding councils to decide in the context of their ability to address the other recommendations being put forward in the review.

8. What plans and performance management arrangements need to be in place to deliver the improvements?

41 The Improvement Plan is currently being developed to address the findings set out in sections 2 – 4 above. This will be finalised at the next meeting of the Review team in early January prior to submission to the joint scrutiny meeting and the JMC meeting in January.

In the meantime, comments are invited on the matters raised in this paper.

Kevin Ambrose November 2001