In October 2025, at The Royal Parks’ biannual Stakeholders’ Breakfast meeting, we asked the people in charge of Richmond Park to implement a trial closure of the road between Richmond Gate and Kingston Gate. Darren Share, the Director of Parks, said they would respond to our question once TRP has dealt with a claim from a party challenging the existing restrictions on through traffic.
TRP 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. In March 2026, we wrote to Dr Linda Yueh, the new chair of TRP, arguing that the organisation cannot allow its parks to be used as a shortcut for journeys in motor vehicles.
In June 2026, Darren responded to our request for a trial ban on through traffic and our letter to Dr Yueh. He stated that TRP is “not planning any further restrictions at this time” but “reducing unnecessary traffic remains an important objective”. He disagrees that the presence of through traffic in Richmond Park breaches TRP’s charitable objects. (Darren did not explain if the challenge to the existing restrictions on through traffic has now been resolved.)
Below is his letter in full, followed by the question our representative read out to Darren and the other attendees at the stakeholders meeting at Pembroke Lodge, and our letter to Dr Yueh.
Thank you for your letter and for your continued engagement with The Royal Parks’ Movement Strategy, particularly in relation to Richmond Park.
We welcome your recognition of the 2020 Movement Strategy and of the positive steps already taken under it. The Royal Parks Charity remain committed to the Strategy and to its core principle of prioritising pedestrians first, then cycling, while reducing the impact of motor traffic where this is appropriate and practicable.
1. Progress under the Movement Strategy
We do not accept that progress has stalled. Since 2020, significant changes have been made to road use within Richmond Park, including the permanent and weekend restrictions you refer to. These measures have materially changed traffic patterns and the way the park is used.
We feel this represents substantial progress towards the objectives of the Movement Strategy. At the same time, we recognise that any further change must be considered carefully, informed by evidence and by an assessment of the wider implications for all park users and neighbouring communities.
2. Commitment to reducing through traffic
We recognise the concerns raised about non-park, car-based traffic and its effect on the park environment and visitor experience. Reducing unnecessary traffic remains an important objective of the Movement Strategy.
However, decisions about further restrictions cannot be taken in isolation. Richmond Park must remain accessible to a wide range of users, including those for whom access by car is necessary, particularly disabled visitors, people with limited mobility, families with small children, and others with legitimate access needs. Any future measures must therefore strike a balance between reducing traffic and maintaining fair and practical access.
3. Accessibility and inclusion
A key consideration arising from the interventions already introduced has been the need to ensure that the parks remain accessible to all. In some cases, car access is essential rather than optional. This is particularly relevant in Richmond Park because of its scale, topography and the range of visitors it serves.
For that reason, we must take care that any further restrictions do not unintentionally disadvantage those who rely on vehicle access.
4. Charitable objectives
We do not agree that allowing cars into Richmond Park places The Royal Parks in breach of its charitable objects. Our responsibilities require us to balance a number of important and sometimes competing considerations, including conservation, biodiversity, public enjoyment, health and wellbeing, accessibility, and the management of the park in the interests of all users.
The measures already introduced demonstrate that we are actively seeking to manage traffic in a way that supports those objectives. We keep these matters under review and do not accept that the current position is inconsistent with our charitable purposes.
5. Environmental impact within and beyond the park
We are mindful of the environmental effects of traffic both within the park and in surrounding areas. Any change to access arrangements within Richmond Park has the potential to affect traffic patterns beyond the park boundary, with consequences for neighbouring communities. That wider impact must be taken into account alongside the environmental and visitor benefits of any proposed restrictions.
6. Car-free days and further closures
We note your suggestions regarding additional car-free days and trial closures between Kingston Gate and Richmond Gate. Again, these are issues that require careful consideration in light of accessibility requirements, operational needs, traffic displacement, enforcement, and the overall visitor experience.
We believe that any such decisions should be taken only following proper review and assessment of their likely effects and we are not proposing any changes at this time.
7. ANPR and enforcement
We have explored the potential use of technologies such as ANPR. However, the advice we have received is that this would not currently be feasible to implement effectively across our park network. We will continue to keep potential technological solutions under review, but at present we do not regard this as a deliverable option.
8. Next steps
We believe that meaningful improvements have already been made to road use in Richmond Park, and we remain committed to the aims of the Movement Strategy. However, before introducing any further restrictions, it is important that we review the impact of the changes already made and consider carefully the needs of all park users, as well as the implications for neighbouring areas.
For that reason, we are not planning any further restrictions at this time.
Yours sincerely,
Darren Share MBE
Director of Parks
****
RPC’s question at the Stakeholders’ Breakfast meeting, October 2025:
Last month, the Office for National Statistics revealed there were 408 pedestrian fatalities resulting from a collision with a motorist in 2024, and just a single pedestrian fatality resulting from a collision with a cyclist. By contrast, 67 cyclists lost their lives after being hit by a motorist.
The Royal Parks’ Movement Strategy commits it to “reduce the amount of through traffic in our parks”, to “explore opportunities to restrict park roads to through traffic” and “implement regular car-free days”. These commitments are aligned with TRP’s charitable objectives, protecting an environment that is both a National Nature Reserve and a Site of Special Scientific Interest.
As the threat from motorists to both public safety and the quiet enjoyment of the park is unarguably far higher than that presented by cyclists, and 78 percent of people surveyed by The Royal Parks in 2020 supported the reduction of through traffic in the park, what further measures does management plan to implement to reduce through traffic in Richmond Park?
We suggest trialling the closure of the Richmond Gate to Kingston Gate road, where over 90 percent of motorists are using it as a shortcut at weekends, according to a 2021 study carried out by Stantec for TRP.
We welcome The Royal Parks’ comments on their general plans as well as our specific proposal.
****
RPC’s letter to TRP chair Dr Linda Yueh:
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 implementing 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 traffic, 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 traffic 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 traffic 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.