THE failure of Historic Royal Palaces to open Kew Palace for the past five years was condemned by art historians yesterday. The organisation’s brief is to ensure that the five unoccupied palaces in its care are accessible to the public.
Plans to reopen the palace as George III would recognise it have been repeatedly delayed since it closed in 1997. It was opened to the public by the Victorians a century earlier. Kew Palace, used by the Royal Family between 1729 and 1818, is the last survivor of several important royal residences at Kew.
It was regarded as a particularly intimate residence, a favoured home of the three elder daughters of George II, as well as George III and his family, while the Castellated Palace was being built near by.
The delay in reopening such an important building reflects a general malaise, the experts claimed. They said that Historic Royal Palaces — which also cares for Hampton Court, the Tower of London, Kensington Palace and Banqueting House — was being run by managers with little appreciation or passion for the nation’s heritage.
The organisation, a self-financing charity since 1998, said that it intended to submit a bid for £5 million from the National Lottery, but it said that Kew was not a priority. The palace attracted only some 25,000 people a year before it closed, compared with the Tower of London’s two million visitors.
Insiders said that such an historic palace could draw 60,000 people a year, but that the management could only look at it in “black and white business terms”. One influential academic claimed that some of the nation’s most important buildings were “in limbo”. “Kew Palace has been closed for five years, which is a scandal — and unbelievable because they have stacks of money in the bank,” he said.
Historic Royal Palaces dismissed reports of cash reserves of £40 million, saying the figure at the end of this financial year will be £13 million, of which £10 million had been earmarked for the Tower of London. Alan Coppin, its chief executive, denied that the failure to open Kew for so many years was a scandal. He said that the organisation had spent £2 million ensuring that it was in good condition.
They are working with the Royal Botanic Gardens at Kew, where the palace is located, in making a joint submission for lottery funds. “It’s taken a long time because we’ve been developing the plans with Kew,” he said.
The organisation’s disillusioned and overstretched staff say that Kew is suffering because the organisation is now led by a non-specialist management that perceives management courses and consultants as more crucial than the repair of stonework and deteriorating tapestries at Hampton Court.
Mr Coppin became chief executive in 1999, having previously worked at Compass, the group that owned Little Chef restaurants until last week, as well as the heritage sector.
One source said: “The problem is that Alan Coppin doesn’t see the palaces as ‘heritage’. For him, they are part of the leisure market. These palaces are much more special than that. He’s never shown the slightest bit of interest in heritage.”
Critics said the scholarly basis of the organisation had been undermined and that the job of curator of the five Royal palaces has been downgraded. Under a new restructuring of the organisation, the curator is no longer represented on the board of directors.
Critics were outraged that one of the main tapestries at Hampton Court has had to be put into storage as there were insufficient funds to conserve it. Critics claimed that elements of the buildings were in a “parlous state”. The Tudor bricks at Hampton Court were delaminating. The top surface was crumbling as a result of the heavy mortar applied to it in the Victorian era.
One source said: “Hampton Court was one of the great jewels in the crown. It’s looking amazingly dowdy now with peeling paintwork. It looks as if no one cares. Experienced curators have left. A major amount of work needs to be done. Instead, it feels as if the focus is on the short term.”
Sharon Manitta, of the UK Institute for the Conservation of Historic and Artistic Works, said: “People who don’t have a clue about heritage are put into the heritage sector.”
Historic Royal Palaces relies solely on ticket sales, fundraising events and retailing. David Starkey, the historian, said he had been “half-impressed” with what it has done. “But there are structural reasons why they’ve gone wrong. We cannot expect such buildings to be completely self-sufficient. In the attempt to make them self-sufficient, they risk all the things that appear to be happening.” Another critic pointed to the “grotty” steel barriers and plastic signs that greet visitors to Hampton Court as a reflection of the management’s lack of understanding of the cultural heritage. “It shows that no one cares. At the front entrance, you see disgusting metal barriers. It’s so dismal. A royal palace shouldn’t have an entrance like that.”
Although Mr Coppin is standing down in the summer, staff fear that the board of trustees will appoint someone without any understanding of the specialist needs of a heritage organisation.
A spokeswoman for Historic Royal Palaces dismissed the suggestion that management courses took priority. “We spent £300,000 over three years on training and developing our people and £9 million in the same period on repairs to the buildings,” she said.
“There are no grotty metal barriers or unsightly signs at Hampton Court. Any signs have to be cleared by English Heritage. If they are grotty and unsightly, they are designed by English Heritage,” she added.
Mr Coppin said his experience included general manager of the historic house and estate of the Duke of Wellington, and as associate general manager at Warwick Castle.
His organisation was part of both the leisure and heritage markets, he said: “The two are not inconsistent. Historic Royal Palaces doesn’t receive any funding from Government, so the money we raise from commercial activities pays to restore these wonderful buildings.”
DEBATE
What should be done with these palaces?
E-mail your views to debate@:thetimes.co.uk
