The Royal Parks has five objectives, known as charitable objects, which form the legal goals that it is set up to achieve – and by allowing through traffic in Richmond Park, it may be acting contrary to three of them. Here is our letter to the new chair of TRP, arguing that the organisation cannot allow its parks to be used as a shortcut for journeys in motor vehicles.

Dr Linda Yueh
Chair of The Royal Parks
The Old Police House
Hyde Park
London W2 2UH

26 March 2026

Dear Madam

We note and applaud The Royal Park’s (TRP’s) 2020 Movement Strategy. This was a class-leading piece of work; it was widely consulted on and delivered many positive headlines for TRP. Sadly, we feel progress under the Strategy has languished in recent years and we wanted to bring this to your attention.

We welcomed particularly TRP’s decision under the Strategy “to work towards significantly reducing non-park, car-based traffic”. Non-park, car-based traffic is problematic because of the serious harm that it presents to other users of the parks – see annex. The Movement Strategy paper lists four specific ways that TRP “will work towards significantly reducing non-park, car-based traffic within our parks by:

• Exploring and implement regular car-free days. Many of our parks already do this (e.g. The Mall is closed on Sundays). We will look to expand and increase these days where appropriate

• Explore opportunities to restrict park roads to through traffic

• Exploring opportunities to use technology to restrict commercial traffic on park roads (e.g. Automatic Number Plate Recognition cameras)

• Reprogramming reclaimed road space for park visitor usage”

Having made a good start implementing the Movement Strategy, since 2021 TRP has taken little or no action, and we are not aware of any current or planned measures which fulfil these specific actions in Richmond Park. It is essential that TRP follows through proactively and with urgency on its original decision, not only because of the harm that non-park, car-based traffic presents, but also because by continuing to allow through traffic, TRP is arguably in breach of at least three of its charitable objects.

The charitable objects of the Royal Parks are:

1. to protect, conserve, maintain and care for the Royal Parks, including their natural and designed landscapes and built environment, to a high standard consistent with their historic, horticultural, environmental and architectural importance;

2. to promote the use and enjoyment of the Royal Parks for public recreation, health and well-being including through the provision of sporting and cultural activities and events which effectively advance the objects;

3. to maintain and develop the biodiversity of the Royal Parks, including the protection of their wildlife and natural environment, together with promoting sustainability in the management and use of the Royal Parks;

4. to support the advancement of education by promoting public understanding of the history, culture, heritage and natural environment of the Royal Parks and (by way of comparison) elsewhere;

5. to promote national heritage including by hosting and facilitating ceremonies of state or of national importance within and in the vicinity of the Royal Parks.

TRP maintains the roads in Richmond Park which are prone to subsidence and cracking, largely due to the volume of traffic using those roads. By allowing through traRic, TRP is failing to protect, conserve, maintain and care for Richmond Park (contrary to object 1).

Through traffic results in an urban environment of fumes, congestion, speed and danger which detracts from the use and enjoyment of Richmond Park for public recreation, health and well-being (contrary to object 2).

Richmond Park is a Site of Special Scientific Interest or SSSI and a National Nature Reserve or NNR. Heavy traffic passing through Richmond Park hinders its biodiversity and sustainability (contrary to object 3).

Following the Movement Strategy in 2020 TRP has

• permanently excluded through traffic from some 40% of the roads (Roehampton Gate to Kingston Gate and Sheen Gate to Sheen Cross).

• at weekends excluded through traffic from a further 30% of the roads (Roehampton Gate to Richmond Gate).

This leaves 60% of the roadway open to through traRic 5 days a week (Kingston Gate to Roehampton Gate via Richmond Gate) and 30% of the roadway open to through traffic 7 days a week (Kingston Gate to Richmond Gate). TRP estimates that this last stretch from Richmond Gate to Kingston Gate is 80% busier since through traffic elsewhere in the park was excluded. Further, at weekends TRP data indicates that some 90% of traffic on this same stretch is through traffic.

By continuing to permit through traRic at any level, TRP is causing serious harm to the environment of Richmond Park and, as set out above, may be acting contrary to at least three of its charitable objects.

We propose that as a matter of urgency TRP implements the following measures:

1. A programme of car free days in Richmond Park

2. Trial closures of the road between Kingston Gate and Richmond Gate

3. Installation of ANPR technology to enforce commercial traffic restrictions, speeding and access generally.

We very much look forward to your response

Yours faithfully

Richmond Park Cyclists

cc. Andrew Scattergood, Darren Share, Paul Richards

Annex

Serious Harms from Motor Vehicles

1. Air pollution
a. NOX - PM 2.5 to 10 - from burnt fuel particulates, brake pads, tyres - harmful to human health and wildlife
b. CO2 from burnt fuel - climate change contribution

2. Water pollution. Particulates, lubricants and dripping fluids on the road surface combine with rainwater, and wash into gulleys, soil, watercourses and water bodies - harmful to wildlife.

3. Noise pollution from moving and stationary vehicles - disturbing and harmful to humans and fauna.

4. Visual intrusion/pollution - disturbing to humans and fauna

5. Risk of injury or death to pedestrians, horse riders, cyclists and deer in any collision
a. Deters pedestrians from sharing and crossing the road
b. Deters cyclists from sharing the road
c. In deterring many visitors from crossing or sharing the road, those potential visitors are likely to be less active, less mentally able, and ultimately less happy, with health outcomes which are likely to be a burden on health services and lead to premature death.