Guidance

Sustaining success in parks

Published 27 February 2025

Applies to England

A rapid evidence review on successful methods of working for parks teams.

Foreword

Parks and green spaces play a vital role in our society, from providing benefits for health and wellbeing to facilitating space for communities to interact, make new connections and share ideas and culture. Recent inquiries have both highlighted challenges faced by parks and green spaces across the country and the need for change in how we think about them. The government is supporting the development and maintenance of quality parks and green spaces through the Green Flag Award Scheme, an internationally recognised standard for high-quality green space to benefit a local community. The ambitious Green Infrastructure Framework also seeks to create nature-rich towns and cities, helping millions realise the benefits of accessing nature.

To help better understand and address some of the long-term, systemic challenges affecting parks and green spaces, this expert report examines two local authorities, the London Borough of Islington Council and Leeds City Council, that were repeatedly highlighted by stakeholders in the parks sector and other local authorities as maintaining a high-quality service. The report examines the challenges both local authorities have faced and how they have managed to foster an innovative and supportive system. Both local authorities have established quality links with community groups, made parks a vital part of their local priorities, sought to secure consistent funding and developed strong teams with a level of trust that allows them to succeed. We hope that this research will allow local authorities to recognise how parks can play a vital role in fulfilling local objectives with the goal of empowering other local authorities to improve the quality of and access to parks and green spaces for communities across the country.

However, we recognise the pressures local authorities have faced in recent years and the adverse effect this can have on managing and staffing their green spaces. Parks can only achieve that level of quality when they are supported by dedicated groups, communities and organisations as well as hard-working local authorities who are responsible for maintaining these assets, working in partnership with central government. From work done in the flowerbeds and fields to planning redevelopment and larger initiatives, the value provided by these spaces is only possible through both the hard work of parks staff in the field, and individuals within councils ensuring that parks remain a core part of local planning and establishing strong relationships with the community they serve. 

This report would not have been possible without the participation of Leeds and Islington council representatives and external friends’ group members for interviews and insights, and I would especially like to thank Dr Meredith Whitten for conducting and authoring such a thorough review. 

Alex Norris MP
Minister for Local Growth and Building Safety
MHCLG

Executive summary

This report summarises a rapid evidence review of successful methods of working for local authority parks teams. The review examines the case studies of Islington Council and Leeds City Council, which have been identified by stakeholders in the green spaces sector as having thriving parks services that contribute effectively to their communities.

This review is based on in-depth, semi-structured interviews conducted with officers and elected councillors from Islington Council and Leeds City Council, and with representatives of community organisations that work with the councils, as a primary method. Additionally, a web-based survey and focused document analysis were used as secondary research methods. Council officers and interview participants from community organisations distributed the survey on behalf of this review.

Evolving recognition of the myriad of various benefits parks and green spaces provide for human and planetary health has heightened interest in these public spaces by policymakers, practitioners and the public. Yet, as a discretionary provision, council parks services have experienced reductions in government spending and other resource pressures (Smith et al., 2023). Although Islington and Leeds have not been immune to immense pressures and budget cuts, they have responded to these challenges with innovation, evidence, organisational support and collaborative partnerships. The successful ways of working this has fostered in Islington and Leeds provides opportunities for policy learning and policy inspiration, which is facilitated by sharing good practices, and the policies, activities and partnerships that led to them.

Key findings

Parks and green spaces support a diverse range of local authority agendas. Islington and Leeds approach their parks and green spaces as vital infrastructure that supports delivery of council priorities and a wide range of council services, including health, housing, highways, adult and child social care, and equality. The councils have embedded parks and green spaces across their core strategies, which has contributed to creating new ways of working, such as internal cross-team collaborations.

A collaborative partnership with the community multiplies the benefits that parks and green spaces deliver. Islington and Leeds have nurtured positive, productive relationships with a range of community partners, including local organisations, businesses and residents. The councils work with and support these partners, who deliver events, maintenance, fundraising, advocacy and programming that greatly extend the work a council could realistically achieve on its own. The increased use and engagement of parks and green spaces by diverse partners also contributes to inclusivity, as more people access and benefit from green spaces.

A forward-looking, supportive and innovative organisational culture fosters good practice. The parks teams in Islington and Leeds maintain positive, trusting relationships with council leadership, who understand the value parks and green spaces add to a range of council services. This fosters confidence, collaboration and a culture of innovation, which enables the parks teams to explore ambitious ways of working, including through creative partnerships and entrepreneurialism.

Prioritising quality improves the varied benefits of parks and green spaces. Islington and Leeds focus on delivering parks and green spaces that meet high-quality standards. Improving and sustaining the quality of their parks and green spaces supports wider council objectives, such as improving health and wellbeing, and is critical for reducing inequalities in access to nature and disparities in health outcomes. Informed by data and evidence and working in partnership with the community, the councils prioritise improvements in spaces that have failed to meet quality standards and in neighbourhoods that lack high-quality green space.

Key recommendations

The report identified three principal recommendations that can be applied across both local and central government’s strategy and approach. These are:

To establish a strategic approach to parks and green space delivery and management. Integrating parks and green spaces into a council’s core strategies enhances delivery of a wide range of council services, including health and wellbeing, adult and child social care, climate, and housing. Doing so also engages council teams beyond the parks team, and signals that these spaces are vital infrastructure benefitting the community and the environment. Embedding parks across council agendas requires organisational change supported by leadership committed to long-term improvements. This includes prioritising funding for capacity-building and innovation. Transformational change also needs support from central government, which has traditionally been limited to capital funding rather than resources that support organisational change, collaboration and long-term sustainability.

• Local government: Embed green spaces within the local authority’s core strategies.
• Central government: Enable transformational change by focusing on strategic support, rather than solely short-term capital, to local governments.

To deliver parks and green spaces through collaborative and coordinated ways of working. With increasing demands on, yet dwindling resources for, parks and green spaces, council parks services cannot deliver high-quality, multifunctional spaces on their own. A collaborative way of working is, thus, fundamental. Working with a diverse range of internal and external partners, council parks teams should approach their role as enabling the delivery of council strategies and priorities, but not needing to lead on every initiative. Fundamental to this is protecting council community-engagement staff and resources, whose support facilitates community partners’ ability to multiply the benefits of parks and green spaces. Such a collaborative approach also should be reflected at the national level, where coordinated support across central government organisations can better leverage capacities and resources than siloed, often duplicative funding schemes.

• Local government: Establish a collaborative way of working focused on shared outcomes.
• Central government: Coordinate across departments to optimise central government assistance and resources.

To cultivate a focus on quality and innovation. Improving and sustaining the quality of existing parks and green spaces should be prioritised to ensure these spaces deliver multifunctional benefits that support a range of council services. Quality should be guided by existing standards (e.g. Green Flag) tailored to, or new standards established for, local context and in collaboration with the community. To achieve this, appropriate skills are needed. Tackling the well-noted national skills shortage cannot occur solely at the local level; coordinated central government support is crucial to developing availability of the educational, professional and technical skills needed. Further, innovative ideas about green space management, funding and governance are needed for long-term sustainability of parks and green spaces. To develop an innovative culture, trust and communication between the parks team and council leadership and between the council and community organisations is needed. Council leadership should empower the parks team to explore new ideas and entrepreneurial activities, supported by research and community collaboration.

• Local government: Focus on improving the quality of existing parks and green spaces.
• Local government: Use data, evidence and research to drive decision-making.
• Local government: Nurture an innovative, forward-thinking and trusting organisational culture.
• Central government: Collaborate with the green spaces sector to address the skills shortage.

1. Introduction

1.1 Purpose of report

MHCLG has commissioned this report to undertake case studies of Leeds and Islington local authorities, which have been highlighted by stakeholders in the parks sector as areas with thriving parks estates that contribute effectively to their community. In order to promote and share learning from these areas with the parks sector this report has sought to answer the following research questions:

• What good practice is being implemented to ensure quality?
• What challenges have been faced and how have they been overcome or mitigated?
• What kinds of future developments are planned to improve their working methods?
• What work has been undertaken on the ground to ensure their successes?

1.2 Introducing Islington and Leeds

Islington, a central London borough, is the second-densest borough in the country, with a population of 216,600 living in 14.9 square kilometres, or 14,578 residents per square kilometre (ONS, 2023a). Every respondent associated with Islington who was interviewed for this review cited the influence of the borough’s density on how green space is used and managed.

Islington Council manages 127 parks and green spaces totalling 72.6 hectares. Thirteen percent of borough land is considered green space (Camden & Islington, 2022). This is the second lowest of any local authority in the country and nearly half the average for Inner London boroughs. Islington’s green spaces also are relatively small, with the borough’s largest being Highbury Fields, at 11.75 ha (Islington Council, n.d.). Figure 1.1 shows one of Islington’s many small green spaces, Duncan Terrace Gardens.

Figure 1.1, Duncan Terrace Gardens, Islington (copyright Meredith Whitten)

Islington Council’s park expenditure is £7.037 million and income is £2.96 million, thus the council operates with a net parks budget of £4.077 million. Organisationally, the parks service is part of the Greenspace and Leisure Service, within the Environmental and Commercial Operations Division, which includes Waste & Recycling, Street Cleansing, Parking and Fleet and Transport. That division is part of the Homes and Neighbourhoods Department. The council works with 43 friends-of-the-park groups.

Islington, jointly with Camden Council, received a two-year, £667,000 grant as part of the national Future Parks Accelerator – a collaboration between the National Lottery Heritage Fund, the National Trust and the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (renamed Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government (MHCLG) in July 2024) (Islington Council, 2022). With the Parks for Health project, Islington has repositioned its green spaces as health infrastructure. As such, the council manages its green spaces to improve people’s health and reduce health inequalities.

Meanwhile, at 111.6 sq km, Leeds, in West Yorkshire, is nearly 7.5 times larger in land area than Islington. With a population of 812,000, Leeds ranks second in total population out of all local authorities in England (ONS, 2023b). Yet, Leeds has a much lower population density (1,472 residents per square kilometre) than Islington (ONS, 2023b).

Leeds City Council’s green space service manages 4,000 hectares of a variety of green space, including 63 community parks, seven major parks and 24 cemeteries. The largest green space in Leeds is Roundhay Park, at more than 700 acres (283.28 ha) – 24 times the size of Islington’s Highbury Fields (Leeds, n.d.).

Leeds City Council’s park expenditure is £39.8 million. With an income target of £27.9 million, the net cost of the parks service is £11.8 million. In Leeds, the parks operations service sits within Climate, Energy and Green Spaces service, which in turn is in the Communities, Housing and Environment directorate. The council works with more than 100 friends’ groups.

Figure 1.2, Woodhouse Moor, Leeds (copyright Meredith Whitten)

Leeds City Council, in partnership with Leeds Community Foundation, Leeds Parks and Green Spaces Forum and the University of Leeds, received a two-year grant from Nesta to research development of a charitable initiative, the Leeds Parks Fund. As part of Nesta’s Rethinking Parks initiative, the council and its partners explored the community’s views on the role and place of charitable giving and local fundraising. The project has fed into plans for sustaining and improving the city’s public parks (University of Leeds, 2019).

Despite their differing contexts, Islington and Leeds, like local authorities across the country, have not been immune to reductions in government spending and other resource concerns, including for their parks and green spaces services. Yet, despite these increasing pressures, both councils share a commitment to delivering high-quality parks and green spaces for residents, workers and visitors. Both Islington and Leeds are recognised for the successful work of their parks teams.

This review provides insightful lessons on the processes, practices and partnerships that support and sustain Islington’s and Leeds’s delivery of parks and green spaces that contribute effectively to their communities.

2. Rapid evidence review methodology

Given the importance of context, nuance and perspective to case-study research on good practice, this review relies on a qualitative approach. This approach facilitates exploring five key criteria in good-practice research: importance, innovativeness, effectiveness, sustainability and – particularly relevant here, replicability. Although parks and green spaces are influenced by local context, adopting ideas from others can lower administrative costs and enable faster implementation compared to developing new strategies from scratch (Wu et al., 2023). Local authorities can find this appealing, given the uncertain budgets and under-resourced operations with which discretionary parks services operate.

This review relied on in-depth, semi-structured interviews as a primary method. Interviews were conducted with select council officers and elected councillors from Islington Council and Leeds City Council, and members of community organisations that collaborate with the councils.

The aim of the interviews was to develop an understanding of the actions, collaborations, organisational culture and contextual factors that have contributed to good practice in the councils. The review also sought to identify lessons from the challenges Islington’s and Leeds’s parks services have faced. Highlighting challenges and obstacles is important for the parks and green spaces sector, where lack of success is rarely discussed due to an “unerring discourse that all green space is valuable” (Dempsey, 2020).

Figure 2.1, Thornhill Square, Islington (copyright Meredith Whitten)

Interviews were fundamental in identifying what is meant by “good practice,” as well as the organisational importance ascribed to parks and integration of parks into council agendas, such as health and wellbeing, adult and child social care, and equity.

A total of 13 interviews were conducted, including 5 with respondents associated with Leeds, seven with respondents associated with Islington, and one respondent who has a pan-London perspective. Four respondents represented community or other third-sector organisations; nine respondents were based in a local authority.

Interviews were conducted via Zoom or Microsoft Teams, recorded and transcribed. Data collected from interview respondents has been anonymised. All participants received an information sheet detailing the research and consented to participate in the research.

Additionally, a web-based survey and focused document analysis were used as secondary research methods. A short online survey, using the Qualtrics software, was distributed to community organisations that collaborate with the councils. Council officers and interview participants from community organisations distributed the survey on behalf of this review.

The survey was intended to supplement the interviews, given the rapid nature of this review. The aim was to collect data from a wider range of actors to provide general understanding of actions taken that have led to successful parks estates, as well as identify organisational and community contexts; partnerships/collaborations; and tangible examples. Seven survey responses were received. The response rate is not wholly unexpected given the time frame to collect responses occurred largely during a holiday period. Given the low response rate, the surveys were used to prompt topics to research, but were not included in the analysis.

Figure 2.2, Hanover Square, Leeds (copyright Meredith Whitten)

A key selection of relevant council documents pertaining to operations and management of parks and green spaces also were reviewed. The aim of this focused document analysis was to gather background information and data that furthers understanding of council structures, operations and the context within they operate. As a research method, document analysis is particularly applicable to qualitative case studies. The documents reviewed included: Islington Local Plan, Islington (and Camden) Parks for Health Strategy, Leeds Parks and Green Spaces Strategy, and Leeds Best City Ambition.^{[footnote 1]}

Additionally, minutes and documents from council meetings, council social media and council websites, as well as social media and websites for community organisations were reviewed.

3. Rapid evidence review findings

This rapid evidence review has identified the following key themes that characterise the successful working practices of the parks services in Islington Council and Leeds City Council. However, simply listing findings does not capture the full story of how the two local authorities have achieved this success. Rather, these findings are interconnected and interdependent, thus Islington’s and Leeds’s achievements lie in how the councils, in collaboration with community partners, thread these overlapping insights together.

3.1 Leadership and vision

Islington and Leeds strategically align their parks and green spaces with wide-ranging council priorities. This comprehensive vision embeds parks and green spaces across council activities, underscoring how both local authorities envision parks and green spaces as fundamental to delivering council services and meeting community needs. Councillors and senior executives have fostered an innovative, empowering and partnership-driven culture that permeates the parks services and provides a supportive foundation that facilitates successful practices. As such, leadership and vision are essential to other themes that emerged in this review. For example, having council leaders who champion integrating green spaces throughout the councils’ core priorities affects the development of partnerships between the parks team and both internal colleagues and external community organisations.

3.1.1 A strategic vision that includes parks and green spaces

Integrating parks and green spaces into the strategic vision and core strategies of the local authority underpins successful practices in Islington and Leeds. Both local authorities connect their provision of parks and green spaces to the delivery of other council services, including health and wellbeing, climate, biodiversity, housing, highways and transport, adult and child social care, and equity and justice. Respondents identified this as essential to delivering the park service’s good practices.

“If you want to maintain as good and well-staffed a service as possible, it has to be delivering and feeding into the core agenda.” (Islington Council respondent)

Embed parks throughout council strategies and priorities. Connecting these spaces with council priorities signals the important contributions these spaces make in delivering a wide range of services, including statutory functions. Further, this supports the need to protect green space-related budgets and resources, despite the discretionary status of parks. Contributing across a range of council functions means the parks service is “seen as a core service, not as an additional luxury.” (Islington Council respondent)

Reconceptualise the role of parks and green spaces across the borough or city. Islington and Leeds have reimagined the role of parks and how these green spaces fit into wider efforts to green the urban environment. As such, parks are not conceptually siloed within the local authority, but instead are connected with other green infrastructure and urban greening efforts. Motivated by compound crises (e.g., climate, biodiversity, health, etc.), the councils have adopted a holistic approach that considers that the health of residents and the environment is enhanced by a greener overall borough or city, not just greening that exists within park railings. Respondents also described how both austerity and the pandemic had contributed to rethinking how, and why, they deliver parks and green spaces. While parks and green spaces’ contributions to residents quality of life remains vital, they now consider that the survival of these spaces depends on their capacity to support a wider array of functions.

Include the parks team in setting the council’s overall vision and developing core strategies and priorities. The parks service has a seat at the table for vision- and strategy-setting processes, thus providing them opportunities to shape the council’s priorities and ensure parks are woven throughout. Actively contributing, rather than being passive recipients of council agenda-setting, enables the parks team to feel valued by leadership and invested in ensuring parks contribute to delivering on key priorities.

Position the parks team prominently alongside departments or teams working with relevant statutory services. In Islington and Leeds, the parks team is structurally connected with departments or teams responsible for delivering key services, such as health, transport and climate. For example, Leeds renamed its parks service from the Parks & Countryside Service to the Green Spaces Service and reorganised the council structure to include the team within the Climate, Energy and Green Space service, thus signalling the importance of parks and green spaces to the council’s approach to the climate emergency and energy issues. The service’s name and position within the council was deliberately chosen to more accurately reflect the contemporary role of parks within the council.

Identify synergies between the parks team and other local authority teams to support the strategic vision and core strategies. The councils recognise that, while parks and green spaces support many council strategies (e.g., health), core strategies and objectives are more readily and cost-effectively delivered when the parks team and other functional teams within the council complement each other’s efforts and work together. For example, in Islington the parks team and the highways team are collaborating to deliver a healthier environment through a programme to green highways.

Establish a clear vision for the parks service. Integrating parks into the council’s core strategies runs the risk of unrealistically expecting parks to deliver too much. Respondents emphasised the importance of setting a clear vision for the parks team to guide decision-making, prioritise limited resources, and help identify opportunities for collaboration with internal and external partners. Respondents also said a clear strategic vision for the parks service can help mediate conflicts of use amongst residents and park users, as it provides a consistent reminder of the objectives the local authority is working towards, such as reducing health inequalities.

“You’ve got to have a clear vision about what you’re aiming for and be able to prioritise the resources so you maximise the benefits, because you’re never going to be able to do everything.” (Leeds City Council respondent)

Communicate the value parks and green spaces provide the council’s core strategies by adopting formal policies. While the links between parks and other council services, such as health, may seem obvious, adopting policies detailing the role of parks and green spaces in delivering these services provides formal recognition, especially for parts of the council that may not be familiar with the multifunctional ways green spaces can support wider council objectives. For example, in Islington, the council executive adopted a policy formally recognising the value of parks in contributing to the council’s health and wellbeing objectives. The parks team developed the policy with evidence and support from its Parks for Health project, conducted jointly with Camden Council through Future Parks Accelerator funding.

Through Parks for Health, Islington Council committed to reimagining the role of the borough’s parks and green spaces. To enhance engagement and deepen understanding of the value of parks, the policy went through an extensive development process, with the entire senior leadership team and joint board having input into the policy. Thus, when the policy was formally adopted, all senior leadership was invested in it. Such formal recognition raises the profile of the parks service, including through opportunities to collaborate or consult with other council teams. It also can provide support for maintaining parks budgets, as the parks team’s activities are interconnected with wider activities to deliver council priorities.

“They (Islington) don’t see green space as being just their parks. They see it more holistically as green infrastructure. They’ve linked their green spaces to making healthier spaces that contribute to the health and wellbeing of their residents and workers. I mean, that’s groundbreaking.” (London charity respondent)

3.1.2 Trust and support of leadership

Council leadership sets the tone for how well parks are integrated into a council’s strategic objectives, the park service’s profile and intra-council collaboration. As such, respondents emphasised “that political buy-in is absolutely key” (Islington Council respondent).

Maintain open and regular communication between the parks service and councillors and the council executive. While leadership does not micromanage the parks service, regular two-way communication between the parks team and elected members and the council executive occurs and is fundamental to building trusting relationships. This includes holding regular meetings and briefings, as well as regularly sharing information via email. Critical to building trust, respondents said, all parties must be able to communicate frankly, for example, about clashes amongst parks users or limited capacity of the park’s team to deliver a task due to resource constraints. Such communication, they said, contributes to setting realistic expectations.

Provide evidence and data regarding the value of parks and green spaces to leadership. Respondents acknowledged that council leadership faces tough decisions. The parks team can help decision-making by providing evidence and data on parks-related issues, helping to lead towards informed choices. While the parks teams primarily work with the councillor whose portfolio includes green spaces, they can improve understanding of how the parks team supports wider council objectives by communicating with other portfolio-holders and linking parks with wider political agendas, such as health and climate. For example, the Islington parks team communicates regularly with the portfolio-holder for health and wellbeing.

“We’ve been able to make them aware of the health and well-being benefits of parks, that they’re not just about creating nice environments, and so they’ve become a champion for our green spaces as part of their portfolio.” (Islington Council respondent)

Support the portfolio-holders’ capacity to champion green spaces. Respondents, including those from community organisations, said political engagement is demonstrated by a portfolio-holder who champions green spaces, is accessible to the community, and works with other councillors to integrate green spaces into their portfolios and across council strategies. This is facilitated by regular, meaningful communication between the parks team and the portfolio-holder, such as about current issues or sector trends. The parks team also keeps the portfolio-holder updated about park-related events being organised by the parks and other council teams and by community organisations. Ensuring the portfolio-holder is well-versed in parks issues is also enhanced by the parks team providing data and evidence, which is discernibly helpful when the portfolio-holder is justifying parks resources in discussions and deliberations with colleagues and the council executive.

Allow the parks team to take risks and pursue innovative ideas. By developing mutual trust through regular, honest communication, Islington and Leeds have fostered a confidence between senior leadership and the parks team that allows the parks teams to explore ambitious, new ideas and take risks without fear of repercussions if the ideas do not prove successful. A trusting and supportive working relationship with council leadership – including both elected members and council executives – facilitates parks teams having confidence to explore innovative ideas. For example, Islington’s application for Future Parks Accelerator funding^{[footnote 2]} proposed transforming the council’s governance structures, ways of working and key strategies, including a novel collaboration with Camden Council. Respondents from Islington said the application, as well as the work involved once they secured funding, would not have been possible without the parks team having laid a groundwork of trust with leadership.

Similarly, in Leeds, the parks team has built trust with councillors that has translated into the parks teams pursuing innovative, entrepreneurial activities, including financing activities through prudential borrowing and managing commercial operations in-house. For example, after conducting research, the parks team proposed developing the Arium, a state-of-the-art horticultural nursery open to the public. The parks team grows plants to use in its parks, as well as trees to meet council tree-planting commitments, and manages an on-site shop and café at the Arium. They also sell plants to the public and reinvest the profits in the parks service, thus providing a sustainable investment. Respondents with Leeds City Council and Leeds community organisations said leadership had confidence in the parks team’s capacity to implement such ambitious plans because officers had presented a well-researched business model, communicated honestly and developed a reputation for successful delivery on previous projects.

“If we were this renegade service, that wouldn’t sit well with the leadership – we’d be reined in. I think where there’s been successes in the past, it’s given councillors comfort, so they’ve felt able to permit us, with future suggestions, to see opportunities and take advantage of them.” (Leeds City Council respondent)

However, one concerning issue raised by respondents from both councils was their trepidation to be identified as having exemplary parks and green spaces services. While this may seem surprising, they described a “race to the middle” (Islington Council respondent) and a current challenge of protecting council services considered at a higher level than what other authorities provide. For example, employing and/or retraining park rangers may be questioned if other local authorities do not provide a similar service.

3.1.3 Organisational culture

A forward-thinking, optimistic and pragmatic culture characterises Islington Council and Leeds City Council. This organisational culture is then reflected in the parks services’ policies and practices and contributes to positive working relationships between the parks teams and internal and external partners. For example, respondents from the councils repeatedly emphasised that they see themselves as stewards, not owners, of parks and green spaces. As such, the councils approach their roles as enablers and facilitators, whose responsibility is to ensure outcomes that support achievement of council objectives, but not necessarily to be the organisation leading on achieving those objectives. This is a shift from traditional council approaches.  

“It’s a partnership approach – it’s not us and them, we work together. We can enable (community) groups to be empowered to do a huge amount of good stuff in parks with the right sort of support arrangements around them.” (Islington Council respondent)

Focus on achieving objectives through enabling partnerships, rather than being the sole deliverer. Respondents from Islington and Leeds described their approach as focused on achieving outcomes, such as delivering healthy living environments, through collaborations and partnerships. In this approach, the council was not automatically considered the only or even the primary provider of services. Rather, respondents saw the councils’ roles as facilitating things happening. Key to this was two-way communication with other partners, such as community organisations, charities and university researchers.

To achieve this, the parks teams actively seek internal and external collaborations. For example, both councils work with their respective friends forum to identify priority investment areas and to develop broader policies, such as around protecting biodiversity through designated wildflower areas or prohibiting dogs in some parks.

In Leeds, Love Leeds Parks, an independent charity, secured a £250,000 National Lottery Heritage Fund grant to test new and inclusive models of park management in six parks through the Leeds Partnership Parks Project. While Leeds City Council works with Love Leeds Parks on the project, the charity is the lead. Love Leeds Parks has completed consultations for two of the six parks, which has provided a wealth of data from residents regarding their vision for the parks’ future, which in turn will help the council with strategic planning and identifying where to prioritise investment. Further, Love Leeds Parks is developing these findings, including through providing grants for activities such as community planting sessions and yoga in the park and through facilitating partner networks.

Minimise administrative burdens. Being an enabler includes streamlining processes and helping partners navigate bureaucracy. For example, Islington’s aim for a culture of permission includes simplifying the council’s process for permitting small-scale events for local organisations. Similarly, respondents recognised Leeds’s efforts to communicate clearly and openly about their policies and practices. For example, when implementing No Mow May, the council put up signs around the city communicating that they were foregoing cutting the grass to enhance biodiversity as well as the importance of biodiverse habitat. Further, they costed the savings to the council and communicated this, as well.

“If I had to use one word for the entire council, it would be pragmatic. It just cuts through an awful lot of stuff that other councils have really struggled with. They’ve just implemented a whole load of No Mow May stuff across the city, but they’ve done it really cleverly … and without any massive political kickback.” (Leeds charity respondent)

Embrace the dynamic nature of a parks service with flexibility. A defining characteristic of both councils’ parks teams is their capacity to adapt to changing contexts and conditions. Their approach involves being flexible and nimble, so “when council strategic priorities change, we adapt and shift” (Islington Council respondent).

Respondents from community organisations and charities also described the parks teams as flexible and adaptable. Central to this approach is a commitment to continuous learning, which involves collaborating with research partners and sharing knowledge and experiences with colleagues from other local authorities’ parks services. Respondents, including those from community organisations, noted that the parks services continually strive to improve. This includes actively seeking to learn from others, sharing their knowledge and experience, recognising limitations, and acknowledging missteps, such as Islington’s reversal of its policy to allow barbecues in parks.

A pragmatic organisational culture also fosters leadership and empowers initiative within the parks team. As such, while respondents addressed the intense pressures they felt from squeezed budgets and increasing demand, they also spoke matter-of-factly about continuing to work towards delivering a successful service.

“There’s no shining cavalry coming over the hill for parks. You’ve just got to roll up your sleeves and get on with it.” (Islington Council respondent)

Support the community through being accessible and approachable. The parks teams in Islington and Leeds actively engage with their communities in diverse ways. This includes employing parks staff, such as rangers, whose role is to be visible in parks and work directly with the community. It also includes consistently attending events organised by community groups, and regularly participating in community organisations’ meetings, such as friends forum meetings. Underpinning this was a culture of communication and openness to sharing information. Further, the parks teams consult with and involve local residents and community organisations in policy development, setting priorities for specific parks and the parks service in general, and strategic planning. For example, community organisations and volunteers are instrumental in conducting quality assessments in Leeds’s community parks and developing management plans for each of the 63 parks.

Take a strategic, long-term approach. In Islington and Leeds, respondents emphasised a long-term commitment to enhancing the park service’s culture. This commitment involves maintaining a strategic focus rather than allowing daily operations to consume all staff time and resources. Having a clear vision for the parks service supports this approach, as parks teams consistently refer to their established vision and priorities to guide their work and partnerships.

Respondents noted that implementing such an approach requires a concerted effort, including placing ambitious, innovative and collaborative individuals in leadership roles within the parks team. Additionally, hiring officers with a focus on outcomes and outreach, who are open to new methods, is essential. This can involve making difficult decisions about modernising the service, adapting to changing skill requirements, and not retaining staff who do not embrace partnership and outreach-focused ways of working. Almost all respondents discussed a personal passion for parks and green spaces that Islington’s and Leeds’s parks teams bring to their work, often describing a commitment to community engagement that extends past their working hours.

Building communication and partnership infrastructure requires time and long-term investment from both the local authority and community organisations and collaborators. For instance, establishing an open, consistent two-way dialogue and fostering trusting relationships through a friends forum requires investment in time and expertise.

“The structures are there to keep the dialogues open. That mutual usefulness is really beneficial, but it has taken several years to build it up.” (Islington charity representative)

3.2 Collaboration and partnerships

The success experienced by Islington and Leeds does not rest solely with the councils and their parks services. Rather, successful working practices have been enabled through collaboration with multidisciplinary, diverse partners. Achieving productive, healthy collaborations depends on organisational culture and strategic vision, discussed in the previous section, further indicating how the findings presented in this review are interconnected.

3.2.1 Internal collaboration

Building and sustaining relationships with other service areas and teams within the council is vital for integrating parks and green spaces into the council’s core objectives. Islington and Leeds have made concerted efforts to facilitate internal collaboration, which respondents said greatly enhanced delivery of not only parks, but a greener urban environment more broadly.

“There’s an overarching understanding that we all need to work towards those wider aims.” (Islington Council respondent)

Encourage cross-team collaboration and breaking out of siloes. In both councils, senior leadership encourages interdisciplinary collaboration to deliver council strategies. This includes identifying common objectives that require input and cooperation from multiple teams to achieve. Because these teams have shared or overlapping goals that align with wider council priorities, council staff is working towards the same objectives. Cross-team working also involves breaking down bureaucratic processes that present barriers to collaboration, such as eliminating requirements for teams to charge each other for internal consultations.

Islington’s parks service, for example, has developed a close partnership with the council’s early-years service, which includes Bright Start (under 5s), Bright Futures (6-19) and Bright Lives (young adults). As a result of intra-council collaboration and embedding green spaces in council core strategies, the early-years service has integrated outdoor sites into their activities, thus mainstreaming delivering activities in parks into their service. In doing so, the early-years service, rather than the parks service, notably often initiates and takes the lead on these outdoor experiences.

Raise the visibility of the parks service by integrating parks into the local authority’s key strategies. By incorporating parks and green spaces into their core strategies and priorities, Islington and Leeds elevate the profile of their parks services, making other services and teams more aware of the benefits they can realise from collaborating with the parks team. This further illustrates the interdependence of the findings in this review.

Demonstrate the value of developing partnerships with the parks service. Respondents said providing evidence of how collaborating with the parks team can support other council departments to more effectively deliver their services and achieve success facilitates cross-team working.

Additionally, the parks teams convey the value of parks to multiple portfolio-holders, such as through briefings, which helps connect parks with functional teams working with those other portfolio-holders. For example, the Leeds parks team engaged with council planners to develop ambitious ideas for developing a habitat banking vehicle to address biodiversity net gain requirements.

Additionally, staff positions can be jointly funded by multiple departments to facilitate the formal sharing of resources and knowledge. For instance, in Islington, a member of the ecology team is funded by the planning department for one day per week, promoting collaboration on ecological planning issues, such as the need to provide or protect green space for habitats in development proposals.

Provide space for collaboration. Offering physical spaces like communal workspaces or co-located offices can foster informal interactions, leading to knowledge exchange, partnership opportunities and innovation. For instance, in Islington, all heads of service share the same office, which promotes interaction and information sharing.

3.2.2 Community partnerships

Community engagement and partnerships have had a transformational effect on the councils’ capacity to deliver parks and green spaces. Community organisations and volunteers do an incredibly varied range of tasks, including organising and running events, gardening and plant maintenance, maintaining facilities, litter-picking, and fundraising. Other groups take a more strategic role, such as planning or conducting research. As such, relationships with the community is a primary driver of Islington’s and Leeds’s success.

Adopt a partnership-oriented mindset focused on outcomes. In Islington and Leeds, respondents from the councils and from community organisations and charities characterised their relationship as a partnership focused on delivering outcomes, such as high-quality green spaces that improve health and wellbeing. A focus on outcomes helped eliminate a traditionally paternalistic attitude by local authorities. Instead, the multiple organisations consider themselves on the same team, working towards the same objectives. While this does not mean local government and community organisations always agree, it represents a shift in attitude that then translates into a change in ways of working. For example, council respondents said they aim to foster a culture of permission, with a “let’s-say-yes-more-than-we-say-no mentality” (Islington Council respondent).

Fundamental to this, every respondent emphasised, is that community organisations and volunteers complement, but do not replace, the park service. Community organisations and volunteers extend the work of the parks services by providing events, maintenance, fundraising, advocacy, programming and other support beyond what the council could on its own, thus providing additional service, rather than merely replacing existing service provided by the local authority. As such, parks services can devote more time to being enablers of additional activities provided by community organisations rather than delivering a smaller number of activities themselves.

“We do a lot around activation of our parks. We increasingly work less on delivering our own direct programmes and events and more on how we can make sure others can do activities and events in our parks.” (Islington Council respondent)

Collaborate with a diverse range of community partners. The parks services partner with a diverse range of organisations and volunteers. Respondents said this was important given the councils maintain responsibility for reducing inequalities and ensuring all residents have access to green spaces and the benefits they provide. For example, Islington works extensively with the Octopus community network, which is a network of 15 community centres near parks across the borough, as well as with the Garden Classroom, a smaller outdoor education charity.

Invest in developing productive community partnerships. Respondents described recent deliberate efforts by both the councils and community organisations to develop positive, forward-looking relationships, which they admitted had not previously existed. They noted that improving these relationships, including building trust and establishing communication structures, was a long-term investment, not a quick fix.

Respondents from community organisations said the councils demonstrated their commitment to nurturing relationships with them through the time and resources they invest in developing empowering, rather than tokenistic, partnerships with organisations and volunteers (Arnstein, 1969). For example, this includes holding regular meetings, actively listening to the community, participating in community events, acting on community organisations’ input and attending their meetings, encouraging community groups to take the lead on initiatives, and recognising the value that community organisations add to delivery of quality parks and green spaces and communicating this to council leadership. A council officer from both Islington and Leeds regularly attends their respective friends’ forum meetings. In Leeds, for instance, a council officer serves as secretary of the Parks and Green Spaces Forum.

With a close partnership, community organisations also have stronger lines of communication with council leadership and, respondents said, are quick to support the parks team “if somebody suggests that revenue should be cut or something should be sold or closed down” (Leeds City Council respondent).

Respondents, thus, described relationships increasingly seen as mutually beneficial. For example, council respondents said they are conscious of not simply looking to community organisations to fill in resource gaps, but rather the parks team looks for ways to demonstrate their genuine interest in understanding the community’s needs.

“We try to create meaningful relationships where we’re not just asking or taking. In the past, those relationships weren’t as meaningful.” (Islington Council respondent)

Respondents from community organisations framed themselves as a “critical friend,” and expressed support for the time and investment the councils had put into developing collaborative working relationships and were sympathetic to the increasing constraints councils are experiencing. The impact of this positive, healthy relationship between community organisations and the parks team should not be under-estimated, as it enables Islington and Leeds to provide additional – and enhanced – services than could occur with a more stereotypically adversarial or hostile relationship between the council and community organisations.

“(There is) a positive attitude from the council that the volunteers are there to help rather than being interfering busybodies. [There is] a formal structure in place that recognises friends-of groups and is flexible enough to deal with different levels of skill and commitment.” (Leeds charity respondent)

Involve the community in long-term planning. While community organisations and volunteers support parks delivery with day-to-day management and maintenance, Islington and Leeds also involve the community in long-term planning through consultation and active participation in tasks such as conducting quality assessments. Doing so enables the council and the community to work together to set a vision for parks and green spaces that has broad buy-in and support. This also reduces major conflicts or friction between the council and the community around policy, practice and investment decisions related to parks and green spaces – and facilitates productive discussions when disagreements do arise.

“You do feel part of the council’s thinking and how they are working, understanding their difficulties as well and sharing their successes.” (Leeds charity respondent)

Evidence and communicate the value of community partnerships to council leadership. Respondents said the parks teams and community organisations, along with other partners such as university researchers, help evidence the value community partnerships bring to the council and the community. The parks teams communicate this information to council leadership, which provides support for retaining staff whose responsibility is engaging with community organisations. For example, Islington has further embedded community engagement in its activities with the recently created role of Parks Partnership Manager, which leads on developing and sustaining relationships with a range of community organisations.

3.2.3 Protecting community-engagement resources

Fundamental to Islington’s and Leeds’s productive and collaborative relationships with the community is retaining council staff with relevant skills to support and coordinate with community organisations and volunteers.

“The biggest area, I think, that we have done well on is we’ve protected the investment in the community engagement side of our parks and open spaces.” (Islington Council respondent)

Invest in council staff responsible for engaging with the community. Respondents from both councils and community organisations emphasised the significant benefits of retaining staff dedicated to community engagement, including interactions with local groups and residents. Community-engagement roles often are targeted in budget cuts by local authorities, even though reducing these positions is counterproductive, as Islington and Leeds illustrate. The work of council engagement officers, including park rangers in both local authorities, generates benefits that exceed the council’s investment in these roles, and respondents emphasised that community volunteers are not a replacement for paid professionals. For example, volunteers need direction and supervision. Therefore, the numerous advantages to both the council and the community of having an active, engaged community and volunteer sector who are involved in parks management and delivery depend on investment in council staff to support them.

“A lot of politicians will tell you volunteers will take over managing a park. No, they won’t. They need paid professionals around them and, until we recognise this, we will not succeed as a nation trying to provide this stuff.” (Leeds City Council respondent)

Provide frontline, on-site staff. Islington and Leeds employ and/or retrain park rangers, highly visible frontline staff in their larger and most-used green spaces who provide an accessible conduit between the council and the community. For example, a Leeds City Council respondent noted that the role of rangers is “to be our connection to our community and our user groups and their voice internally. They bring back that community aspiration and value and desire to management to say, ‘This is what the community wants. This is what they value at this site.’ So, they do all that work.”

Having staff in parks and accessible to residents and community organisations helps develop that relationship by enabling everyone “to get to know each other on a more human level” (Islington Council respondent). Having these accessible, approachable staff also helps mediate conflicts before they escalate.

“A key service the rangers deliver is helping to manage those conflicts [amongst different user groups] and sorting them before they become problems that put people off using the parks.” (Islington Council respondent)

Quantify the impact of community engagement staff. While staff and community perspectives on the value of having on-site staff and council officers dedicated to working directly with community organisations and residents are compelling, respondents noted that quantifying this value is essential to persuade decision-makers of their continued value. Therefore, communicating this data to council leadership is crucial, with emphasis on how council community engagement staff multiplies the benefits that community groups and volunteers can provide. For instance, the Leeds parks team has calculated that, with the support of council officers, annual volunteer activity is equivalent to about 110 full-time employees. The parks team shares this information with councillors and the council executive, especially during budget discussions.

Communicate the diversity of community-led activities facilitated through council support. Respondents highlighted the benefits that a diversity of community-organised events, programs and activities bring to both the council and the community. Thus, in addition to reporting the number of events or volunteer hours facilitated by community engagement officers, parks teams and community organisations also showcase the variety of activities and the diverse communities these activities reach. Respondents stressed the importance of communicating that these community-led events would not happen without the support of community engagement staff, as discussed earlier. A respondent from Islington used Duncan Terrace, a small park with abundant planting, to illustrate this.

“Quite frankly, we would struggle with not only the skill sets, but the capacity to maintain it [Duncan Terrace] to the level of standard it is now. That’s because we’ve got an incredibly active and hard-working volunteer group that supports the activities there, led by one lady in particular who coordinates volunteer day, helps us raise money, promotes the space and gets the community active in it. But, to do all of that, she has to have people in the council to talk to, get support from and sound off against. All that coordination and support needs people within the council to do it.” (Islington Council respondent)

3.3 Strategy and practice

In Islington and Leeds, an emphasis on quality – of the physical spaces and of the partnerships involved in delivering them – prevails. This aligns with the councils’ pragmatic approaches that to realise the health and environmental benefits of parks and green spaces, these spaces must be accessible, inclusive, safe and attractive to all members of the community. The themes in this section also link with previously discussed themes above. For example, maintaining high-quality standards and prioritising quality improvements in park-deprived neighbourhoods contributes to delivering overarching, core council strategies, such as related to improving health outcomes and reducing inequalities.

3.3.1 Focus on quality

A focus on improving and sustaining high-quality green spaces characterises Islington’s and Leeds’s approach to delivering green spaces. This matters for safety, accessibility and maximising varied benefits from their spaces, as to contribute to a broad range of council agendas, green spaces must be maintained to quality standards. It also is critical for addressing inequalities including in access to green space and in disparities in health outcomes.

Prioritise quality over quantity. Respondents in Islington and Leeds emphasised the importance of maintaining parks and green spaces to high-quality standards, noting that creating new green spaces does not add benefit if those spaces are not then maintained to quality standards. As such, both councils have prioritised improving and sustaining quality standards that support wider council objectives, such as improving health and wellbeing and enhancing biodiversity.

For example, Islington works with Parks for London, a pan-London charity that facilitates communication and coordination across landowners and land managers on green-space issues, to assess the quality of the council’s parks service through the charity’s 10 Good Parks for London criteria, which include supporting nature and health, sustainability, and community collaboration, among others (PfL, 2022a).

Leeds has prioritised green-space quality with a long-term strategy to see all their spaces meet the international Green Flag Award standards. Submitting all city parks and green spaces to Green Flag is cost-prohibitive, so Leeds established its own Leeds Quality Park standard. The council conducts an in-house assessment, informed by Green Flag criteria and with the support of community volunteers, to determine if a park or green space meets the Leeds Quality Park standard. For example, the standard uses criteria such as welcoming, clean and well maintained, and healthy, safe and secure to rate the quality of green spaces. Leeds has been using its Quality Park Standard for nearly 15 years. In that time, the council has experienced a marked improvement in green space quality, with 77% of community parks currently achieving the Leeds Quality Park standard, compared to 22% in 2010 (Leeds City Council, 2024). The standard also serves as a key performance indicator (KPI).

To further improve the quality of green spaces across the city, Leeds is producing a “Plan on a Page” for each of its 63 community parks. The plan provides a roadmap for getting a park to the Leeds Quality Park standard. Presented in a two-sided A3 document, each plan shows the park as it is now on one side of the page and a vision for the park’s future on the other side. Once a Plan on a Page is completed, the council produces an action plan that includes both immediate and long-term interventions for that park or green space.

“Some things might be low-cost interventions, like having relaxed mowing or natural play, that we might be able to do as a community or as a department. Other things might be more of a long-term aspiration, like three football pitches. But, the idea is that you capture a vision for each park through that Plan on a Page.” (Leeds City Council respondent)

Target quality improvement in areas with low-quality green spaces. To support council priorities regarding reducing inequalities and disparities in access to nature and health outcomes, both Islington and Leeds’s parks teams prioritise improvement to green-space quality in parks that are deemed to have low quality or that fail a quality assessment. Conducting assessments for the Leeds Quality Parks standards enables the parks team to target its resources to spaces that do not meet the level of quality, thus helping to improve equitable access to good-quality green spaces for residents most in need of such spaces. Strategically, this raises the quality of parks and green spaces across the city.

Support quality improvements with data and research. The councils use evidence and research to guide their decision-making regarding quality. This includes drawing from scholarly and policy research to establish quality criteria, as well as collecting on-site data related to a green space that can be used to target investment and provide for long-term monitoring and strategic planning. For example, Islington identifies successful practices in other London boroughs through knowledge sharing and networking, including through Parks for London. Leeds retains data from each park’s previous Leeds Quality Parks assessments, thus providing a historical record that is useful in identifying areas that need ongoing monitoring or that are consistent barriers to that park meeting high-quality standards.

Collaborate with partners to improve green space quality. The councils partner with other organisations, including friends’ groups, charities such as Love Leeds Parks, and university researchers to establish – and revisit – quality criteria. For example, work by University of Leeds researchers has shaped the Leeds Quality Parks standard. Data collected through the Leeds Quality Park assessments also informs the work and investment of community organisations. For example, Love Leeds Parks uses data from the assessments to target its investment, grants and community consultation.

“They’ve got a … pretty good data set. It has helped us frame where we should work and how we should work, because there are definitely places where there’s nothing in the pipeline to go about helping those places.” (Leeds charity respondent)

Further, Leeds’s Plans on a Page are developed in partnership with ward councillors and local communities through a wide-ranging consultation process. This includes directly contacting community committees, local groups such as friends’ groups, In-Bloom groups and sports clubs, nearby households, and children and young people. The parks team member leading on a particular Plan on a Page also holds public meetings in the park to further solicit public input. The council aims to produce at least 12 plans a year, with all community parks having a plan in place by 2028. Once a Plan on a Page is completed, the council produces an action plan detailing the work needed to deliver the plan and the organisation or team responsible for each task. The plan also provides a strategy describing where to target investment from any funding that becomes available to support the action plan.

Communicate the quality standards to maintenance staff. Ensuring that maintenance staff understand the details of quality standards is essential to sustaining quality improvements and is a critical link between strategy and practice. In Leeds, for example, the Leeds Quality Park standards are communicated to staff as part of their outcome-based approach to maintenance and groundskeeping.

Communicate the importance of quality to leadership. A consistent theme from respondents was the need to shift thinking from an emphasis on quantity to one of quality. Council leadership, respondents noted, often champion creation of new spaces, but do not promote quality improvements and this signals to the community that capital projects are preferred. Several respondents also said quantity is promoted over quality by national funding schemes that focus on capital projects and new park creation rather than raising the quality and, thus, usability and accessibility of green spaces in the long term.

“You can create a new green space and cut the ribbon on it, but what happens to it 10, 20 years down the line? That’s where so much of the [parks] funding crisis is. How do you sustain the quality of those spaces? Funding is always for capital projects, but it’s the maintenance within that we need to talk about.” (Leeds charity respondent)

3.3.2 Expanding inclusivity

Engaging with communities and people who do not access or seldomly access parks and green spaces is a priority in Islington and Leeds, with both councils aiming to ensure all residents reap the multifunctional benefits of their green spaces. This is driven by council priorities and strategies regarding improving health and wellbeing, enhancing social connectedness and community cohesion, providing quality living environments, and reducing inequalities – again illustrating the interconnectivity of the themes identified in this review. As such, the councils’ efforts to engage with diverse and underserved communities demonstrate how they approach their strategic role with parks and how they see parks as vital to delivering other strategies, including those supporting vulnerable residents.

Identify and engage directly with residents who do not access parks. Rather than just promoting use of existing spaces and facilities, Islington and Leeds work with community groups to understand why these groups are currently not accessing green spaces. This involves engaging with publics and communities across the borough or city, as well as conducting research about park users and non-users. They aim to understand the barriers that exist, thus allowing the councils to make changes to improve the groups’ use of green spaces. Such tactics are more successful than expecting these non-park users to start using green spaces as is. This is a subtle, yet powerful difference.

For example, the parks team in Islington has worked extensively with local Muslim residents and organisations, especially women’s organisations, to facilitate their use of – and benefits from – the borough’s green spaces. Parks staff met with Muslim women groups multiple times to understand why they did not visit parks and to seek their input on what the council could do to address this. One issue the groups raised was feeling unsafe. Council staff organised and led guided walks to help the residents become familiar with parks and identify specific aspects that concerned them, such as off-lead dogs. From this, the council can make policy and practical changes, such as designating dog-free areas within parks. Working with a local mosque, parks staff also organised a nature walk for Muslim residents, led by a Muslim nature guide. Further, parks staff attends Islamic events in the borough to demonstrate community cohesion and to better understand the group’s needs and preferences, which they then can translate back into parks programming and facilities.

“We make sure that we’re not just asking, asking, asking, taking, taking, taking, but rather it’s about, ‘how can I come and help you with the things that you’re doing?’ And I think we’re good at linking in with what else is happening and then using that to focus what our events are and who are they for and what are they providing for people.” (Islington Council respondent)

Collaborate with community organisations to enhance diversity and inclusivity. Efforts to improve the diversity and inclusivity of park users involves working with community organisations, such as friends’ groups, which can lack a membership that reflects the community’s makeup (Whitten, 2019). Respondents from both councils said this was fundamental to their responsibility to provide for all residents, not only those who are most vocal and active in green-space governance. Building on evidence and research from staff experience and from data provided by external researchers, respondents said feeling welcome and included is important for residents to access and use green spaces for health, wellbeing and social connectedness. Ensuring that diverse communities are represented and have a voice is pivotal to this.

For example, friends’ groups can lack ethnic, socioeconomic and age diversity, which is not reflective of park users. Respondents said some friends’ groups try to prioritise efforts to diversify their membership, but find this challenging. Islington’s parks team supports friends’ groups’ activities to enhance inclusivity, such as by providing banners that promote the diversity of local park users and residents; helping the groups develop their online and social media presence; and supporting friends’ group officers to attend diversity training, such as that organised by the Greater London Authority. Meanwhile, community organisations in Islington have held events targeted at including under-represented groups, such as inviting local residents to a coronation picnic in the park and providing funding for ingredients when those residents offered to cook for attendees.

Connect benefits of parks with wider council strategies to improve inclusivity. Respondents from both councils and community organisations emphasised the importance of connecting efforts to improve inclusivity with broader council strategies, as doing so reaches a wider range of residents. However, they also noted that improving inclusivity and diversity of park users and friends’ group membership requires sustained, long-term commitment. In turn, this requires councils to maintain staff who work with local communities and organisations, linking to previously discussed themes in this review.

3.4 Staffing and funding

To maintain successful parks services that deliver quality, healthy parks and green spaces through collaboration, local authorities need appropriate staffing and funding, and an innovative approach to accessing resources. Islington and Leeds maintain an entrepreneurial, community-driven focus that guides their decisions and investments and that is fostered by supportive leadership and strong collaborative relationships, themes previously mentioned in this report regarding protecting staff with community-engagement responsibilities.

3.4.1 Income generation

Like many local government parks services, Islington and Leeds have not been immune from drastic cuts to budgets and other resources and impacts from the pandemic and cost-of-living crisis. To address this, both councils have emphasised income generation within their parks.

Be open to developing council-run income-generation schemes. Respondents said a shift is needed away from deeply embedded assumptions that organisations other than local authorities are more effective at running commercial operations. Leeds’s parks team, for example, has experienced success with several staff-initiated and staff-run income-generating schemes, including cafés and gift shops and an indoor wildlife park and zoo.

Indeed, Leeds’s civic-enterprise initiatives have helped sustain the parks service. These include Lotherton Wildlife World, Tropical World and the Arium. Located in a former Victorian palm house in Roundhay Park, Tropical World is a licensed zoo. Through prudential borrowing, the council refurbished and expanded the facilities, which is now a main attraction in Leeds. Revenue from the entry fee the council charges, plus a successful café and retail outlet, are reinvested into the parks service.

The council also invested £6.5 million in the Arium, a purpose-built plant nursery. The council grows its plants, including trees, at the Arium and sells surplus stock to the public. Revenue from plant sales, as well as from an on-site café, is reinvested in the continued maintenance of Leeds’s parks and green spaces.

“I think that’s been quite unique in terms of turning some of the assets into a way to raise income, but still recognising that they’re free-to-access green spaces. We’re trying to strike that balance between using them to bring in income, but recognising that we don’t want a community park to be a chargeable location.” (Leeds City Council respondent)

Base income-generation and commercial-operation decisions in evidence and research. Whether it’s a council-run or third-party income-generation scheme, respondents said robust research is needed to make a compelling business case. For example, for Leeds’s in-house income-generation operations, staff conducted extensive research, including talking with other local authorities to identify what did – and did not – work for them. They also consulted with community organisations and relevant national charities. Further, they worked with council leadership to ensure their proposed schemes will have long-term sustainability for the parks service, such as by ensuring income generated is retained by the parks service and reinvested in parks and green spaces, rather than going into general council coffers. To develop a robust business model, the parks team had to access appropriate skills, such as through partnerships with universities and local businesses.

Engage with entrepreneurial activities strategically. Islington and Leeds have experienced success with income-generation models, in part, because they are strategic in their entrepreneurial decisions. Rather than taking a scattergun approach, the parks teams focus commercialisation in targeted parks and with activities appropriate for a space’s context.

Collaborate with the community on commercial activities. While the councils have been ambitious regarding running commercial schemes, they do not do so in isolation. Developing a commercialisation scheme requires significant consultation with the community to determine viability. Further, collaboration also includes supporting community organisations and businesses to operate income-generating schemes that meet the needs of the local community and are appropriate for the specific green space. For example, Leeds City Council, along with Sport England and British Cycling, invested £1.2 million to turn a former golf course in Middleton Park into Leeds Urban Bike Park, a state-of-the-art mountain bike and BMX centre. The Urban Bike Park is run by Cycle Pathway, a Leeds-based not-for-profit community interest company specialising in the promotion of cycling. In addition to cycling tracks and trails, Cycle Pathway also operates a bike shop, servicing and repairs, coaching, and a cafe and cake shop at the bike park.

Communicate honestly with the community regarding rationales for income generation. Respondents said much of the friction surrounding income-generating events can be mediated through proactive, honest communication. This includes the parks team being transparent with the design and impact of events and schemes. This also includes communicating frankly about the budget issues necessitating income generation and commercialisation, and the scale and impacts of cuts to services that would occur without raising income. Respondents from community organisations and charities were sympathetic to the financial position of local authorities and, while not opposed to income-generating schemes, wanted input to ensure they were appropriate for the space, limited in scale and based in a sound business model.

Align commercial activities with local context. Respondents said criticism regarding commercialisation in parks and green spaces often centres on the activity being inappropriate in scale or scope for the local context, including the space itself and the community around it. Thus, they said, income-generation must be sensitive to local conditions and fit local context in size, scale and frequency.

“Leeds has done those sorts of pop festivals in the past, but they are now focused on more middle-ground stuff rather than those large events.” (Leeds charity respondent)

3.4.2 In-house and specialist teams

Islington and Leeds have taken deliberate decisions to have in-house parks teams, which provide the councils with flexibility, consistency and control over work performed and the skill sets of the workers doing it. The following approaches were found to be successful:

Hire staff to work as specialists rather than generalists. In Islington and Leeds, staff work as specialists, such as rangers focused on community engagement and events, an assets team handling infrastructure and other assets, and park keepers maintaining an on-site presence in individual parks. While respondents acknowledged that local authorities facing staff cuts might struggle financially to hire specialists, they said specialisation creates efficiencies and facilitates recruitment and hiring, thus is more cost-effective in the long run.

Specialisation also can simplify the recruitment process because it requires a targeted skill set, allowing councils to be specific about job requirements and more accurately assess candidates’ suitability. This approach leads to hiring individuals who are well-suited for their roles and more motivated because the job matches well with their skill set. For instance, respondents mentioned that finding a single candidate skilled in outreach and engagement, enforcement and community safety, and park maintenance is nearly impossible.

Instil an outcomes-based way of working for maintenance. An in-house team enables the councils to be more nimble and cost-efficient, particularly regarding maintenance activities. With in-house maintenance teams, councils can prioritise outcomes-based efforts rather than adhere to inflexible metrics or strict contractual obligations. For instance, instead of cutting the grass a predetermined number of times as stipulated by a contract, in-house staff can assess when the grass needs cutting and allocate their time accordingly.

Leeds, for example, decided to no longer use cyclical maintenance regimes, adopting quality-focused outcomes instead. Maintenance staff are provided with the necessary equipment and personnel to meet the green-space quality standards developed by the council in consultation with the community. This approach empowers maintenance staff to make decisions and determine the best methods to achieve those outcomes.

Empower staff through specialisation. Specialising contributes to a positive work culture. Respondents said staff feel trusted and empowered with a professional identity that comes from having a more targeted role. With a skill set that matches their job responsibilities, staff develop confidence, which translates into better working relationships with the community. For example, respondents from community organisations in Islington said the council’s efforts to hire skilled staff is evident: “They seem to carefully choose people with skills and who care about their job and take time to listen.”

Respondents recognised such an outcome-based, specialised-staff approach differs from a typical local authority approach and may seem to relinquish managerial oversight. However, they said the positive organisational culture it facilitates leads to more motivated employees who enjoy their jobs. In the long term, this provides substantial benefits.

“People at the coalface delivering that work become more empowered than what you lose as a manager. And, as a collective team, the outcomes are incredible. But, it does take a leap of faith to get there.” (Leeds City Council respondent)

3.4.3 Innovative early adopters

An innovative approach frames how Islington and Leeds envision opportunities and approach challenges, including regarding resource constraints. Rather than taking a wait-and-see approach, they “jump on things quickly” (Islington Council respondent) and “are quite good at seeing opportunities and taking advantage of them” (Leeds Council respondent).

Promote an innovative culture. Respondents from both councils discussed the importance of an organisational culture that fosters innovation and cited support from senior managers and leadership as essential for empowering their innovative and entrepreneurial approaches. Similar to local authorities across the country, constant budget challenges concern the parks teams in Islington and Leeds. However, rather than leading to turf protection or defensiveness about the parks service’s resources, respondents described a culture that cultivates efforts to think differently about ways of working and “step outside our comfort zone” (Leeds City Council respondent).

For example, Leeds has successfully taken an entrepreneurial civic-enterprise approach to income generation. However, when initially exploring this model, there was uncertainty about its viability, particularly a local authority’s capacity to manage such a scheme. Yet, the parks team conducted extensive research, including community consultations, and maintained regular discussions with internal colleagues, such as those in finance. These consultations shaped the parks team’s proposals, such as limiting chargeable activities to specific locations, like cafés, to maintain free-to-access community parks.

“When government funding was starting to be cut from parks provision, we felt we could do one of two things. We could either try and fill the gap by being innovative or we could just start removing assets and features and go quietly into the night and eventually become a green desert. That didn’t feel like anything that any of us wanted to do. So, we hitched our trousers up and got on with it really.” (Leeds City Council respondent)

Leeds also has taken a proactive approach to recent national biodiversity net-gain requirements. Rather than seeing requirements as a bureaucratic challenge, Leeds Council’s approach is to consider it as “a way to help us improve some of our 4,000 hectares” (Leeds City Council respondent). Leeds Council has employed an ecologist to lead on biodiversity net gain delivery, at the time of writing they are identifying where there is potential to deliver net gain on their green spaces and intend on being one of the first local authorities to set up a habitat banking vehicle.

Embed innovative efforts in long-term, strategic thinking. While day-to-day operations, such as responding to resident communication, consume much of staff’s time, both councils balance this with consideration for the bigger picture and future planning. For example, Islington decided to bring their green space grounds maintenance in-house instead of contracting it out. This decision was taken because they wanted to have more control over the workforce, including skill sets, and more flexibility to respond to changing demands. The parks service was able to do this by demonstrating the long-term benefits, despite higher immediate costs, to leadership. A London charity respondent noted that this was “a very brave move that also took political commitment.”

Work with partners who can facilitate and support innovation. The parks teams’ proactive approaches are facilitated by the internal and external relationships they deliberately foster. For example, Leeds’s parks team works closely with planning officers in developing their approach to biodiversity net gain. The council also works with Love Leeds Parks, who is leading on efforts to test innovative, inclusive models of park management and who has a wide network in the city. Islington worked with Camden Council on their successful application for Future Parks Accelerator funding, which respondents said was a pioneering approach that demonstrated ambitious, innovative, collaborative and strategic thinking, including regarding green space governance.

Minimise bureaucratic barriers. Respondents noted that a proactive, innovative approach is challenging in local government, where “you can need so many permissions and there’s so much bureaucracy” (Leeds Council respondent). Yet, they recognised that reducing bureaucratic processes and excessive permission structures – both internally for the parks team as well as externally in their work with partners – is fundamental to fostering innovation and testing new ideas and practices. This can be addressed through both a general council culture that aims to streamline processes, as well as changing specific operational procedures. For example, Leeds Council has established a formal agreement with Love Leeds Parks that allows the charity to run a specified number of events in parks without needing to ask permission each time.

Maintain communication between the parks team and council leadership regarding exploration of entrepreneurial ideas. The parks teams also maintain open communication with community partners and with senior council leadership, keeping them updated on their ideas. For example, both councils meet regularly with the local friends forum to provide updates and solicit input and ideas on income-generating events and activities. Regular communication also builds trust, which is critical for maintaining support, including when new ideas do not pan out. The parks teams admit when entrepreneurial efforts do not take off, providing a transparency that builds trust with senior council leadership as well as with the community.

“They try new things and they’re willing to own up when things don’t work well or when things go wrong, so there’s a transparency in the way they operate.” (London charity respondent)

Critically, respondents added, they are not penalised when their innovative efforts do not come to fruition. This provides further confidence and support for exploring and testing new ways of working. Respondents described approaching efforts that do not succeed not as a failure, but as a learning experience and gaining knowledge to apply to future entrepreneurial efforts.

“They are not as risk averse as other local authorities. That’s quite a thing to say about local government because everything is set up for them not to take risks.” (Leeds charity respondent)

3.4.4 Research-driven decisions

Both parks services use evidence, data and research to guide their decision-making, including for operational, strategy and investment decisions. Respondents from both councils described their focus on research and data collection as a deliberate decision and noted that doing so had streamlined decision-making, improved communication with senior managers and leadership, and led to collaborative partnerships with external organisations. Both emphasised that this remains a work in progress.

Collect data to quantify operational value. Operationally, both councils collect data for key performance indicators (KPIs), such as number of volunteer hours, number of health-related events or number of green social prescribing sessions delivered. This allows them to make informed decisions and to present the case for parks or specific initiatives to leadership armed with data, facts and evidence, which simplifies decision-making processes for leadership. Such evidence-based decision-making contributes to protecting parks budgets and resources, for example, by demonstrating the specific impact a policy or budget choice will have.

Islington’s and Leeds’s parks services use data and evidence to provide a more accurate picture of the value they contribute to strategies and practices throughout the wider council, as well. They also ensure they provide evidence for the outcomes and impact they enable and facilitate through collaboration and support of other organisations, not just services and activities they provide directly themselves. For example, Islington reports data, such as number of events and participants delivered by charity partners yet enabled by the parks service. Doing so more realistically captures the impact the parks service has, while also demonstrating the value in maintaining staff who work with external partners.  

Situate strategic-planning activities in research. Research also underpins policy and strategy development, including investment. For example, conducting research and collecting data guides Leeds’s Plan on a Page management plans for each community park. This research draws from meetings and consultations with ward councillors and local communities and organisations, as well as from in-house research, such as through the council’s parks accessibility and quality audits. This data then helps the council prioritise which parks need investment, as well as type of funding sources to target to achieve quality standards. This subsequently helps the council deliver on objectives in its Parks and Green Spaces Strategy, including quality parks, access for all, and health and wellbeing. For instance, the council prioritises parks in areas of deprivation and low-quality parks where evidence shows the health benefits of free, quality public green space are greater.

After a Plan on a Page is completed, the council creates an action plan specifying what specific tasks need to be accomplished to improve the park, as well as designating who is responsible for implementing a task, such as operational teams making alterations to their mowing schedules. The parks service’s technical team uses the research conducted for the Plan on Page and the action plan to target its efforts to identify funding.

Collaborate with research partners. Both councils leverage research capacity through collaborations with external partners, including universities, friends’ groups and other community organisations, and relevant national organisations, such as Keep Britain Tidy. For example, Islington has collaborated with University College London on developing a healthy parks framework. Meanwhile, Leeds has established a strong working relationship with the University of Leeds, with research from university researchers underpinning council strategies and practices, such as its Leeds Quality Park standards.

Both councils have proactively sought out these research collaborations, such as by directly contacting university researchers or by being accessible and enthusiastic when researchers approach them about projects. For example, in 2016, University of Leeds researchers conducted a survey, in collaboration with Leeds’s parks service, that investigated uses of parks across the city and by different social groups, experiences and expectations of park users, and levels of satisfaction with parks and priorities for the future. The researchers recommended that the council prioritise raising the standards of parks across the city to ensure access to good quality green space for all residents and visitors. This recommendation, and the research that supported it, led the parks service to initiate its Plan on a Page approach.

“It [the survey] gave us a huge amount of data on where people were going and why they were going and who they were going with. We could see a direct correlation of investment into a site, the quality going up and footfall increasing.” (Leeds City Council respondent)

Parks service staff actively seek out learning opportunities, such as sharing good practices, including with colleagues in other local authorities. For example, Islington works closely with neighbouring borough Camden, as the two Inner London boroughs share similar challenges. Islington also engages with other London boroughs through networks such as Parks for London. Through Parks for London’s Good Parks for London annual assessment, Islington has access to data and research regarding other London local authorities’ policies and practices on 10 criteria that Parks for London uses to measure quality parks.

Base communication with council leadership on data, evidence and research. Respondents said that council leadership and executive management encourage their efforts to collect data and evidence in-house as well as to collaborate with external research partners. This support, they said, gives them the space and time for research, and indicates that council leaders value the parks team’s efforts with evidence-based decision-making.

To develop this support, respondents said data and evidence collected must be shared with decision-makers, including portfolio-holders. Staff achieve this by providing well-documented materials, such as proposals, and through regular communication, such as meetings and briefings, with leadership. Respondents said they approach providing leadership with evidence and research as an opportunity to further develop supporters for the work of the parks service. For example, providing portfolio-holders with evidence for operational decisions and entrepreneurial activities helps the portfolio-holder justify sustaining resources for the parks service to their colleagues, particularly when difficult financial decisions are discussed.

“If you don’t give them that information to defend your corner, then unfortunately they’re going to lose those battles that they’re having at a high level.” (Islington Council respondent)

3.5 Challenges

While the good practices discussed above have contributed to successful methods of working and delivery of parks and green spaces in Islington and Leeds, respondents from Islington Council and Leeds City Council emphasised continued success is not guaranteed given a number of significant challenges they face. These challenges are not isolated or localised, but rather experienced throughout the parks and green spaces sector and by local authorities across the country.

3.5.1 Shortage of skills

Islington and Leeds struggle to recruit staff with needed skills. The skills shortage experienced by the councils reflects a sector-wide, national challenge, recently emphasised by the Parks Management Association, Landscape Institute, Association for Public Service Excellence, London Green Spaces Commission and Groundwork, amongst others. The skills needed to deliver, manage and maintain parks and green spaces have evolved from traditional, horticulture-focused roles, thus the workforce needed in a council parks service has shifted, as well. For example, just some of the skills a 21st-century parks manager needs include: finance, commercialisation and entrepreneurialism, community engagement, volunteer management, horticulture and arboriculture, asset and facilities management, contract management, grant-writing, heritage, ecology, communication, health and safety, human resources, complaints management, and sports and events management. Staff with horticultural skills remain particularly challenging to recruit, both in-house and via contractors.

“The skill set for a parks manager has just diversified massively over the last 30-40 years. And, those skills, at whatever level it be, are in short supply.” (Leeds City Council respondent)

3.5.2 Career progression

Lack of opportunities for internal career progression, notably for gardeners and others with horticulture skills, affects both councils. To address this, both are focusing on internal training, mentoring and other methods of supporting existing staff to develop or switch careers. However, this can lead to shortages elsewhere in the council and opportunities to progress remain limited due to spending restrictions. Whilst Islington and Leeds have apprenticeship schemes, they have experienced challenges retaining people from these schemes, as vacancies are not readily available when people complete the apprenticeship. Islington Council can only afford to have three or four apprentices at one time. Meanwhile, Leeds City Council will only take on an apprentice when there is a full-time position to place them into. Respondents noted that this is a multi-year process, with no guarantee of success should starters leave the programme before completion. The implication for parks services is they are lacking needed skills, but are unable to develop and recruit enough skilled gardeners.

“A counterbalance to having a loyal, stable workforce is there’s a level where people get a bit stuck, so you lose people out because there’s nowhere for them to rise up to…. you’re training people up and developing and them and often losing them out at a certain level. So, you ship skills and that’s a challenge.” (Islington Council respondent)

3.5.3 Workforce diversity

A challenge identified by almost all respondents was a lack of workforce diversity, which exacerbates recruitment difficulties. The make-up of parks services is unrepresentative of park users and the working population as a whole and starkly illustrates workforce fairness and equity concerns (see LGSC, 2020; CABE Space, 2005). A parks service workforce that reflects the diversity of the communities it serves is better equipped to understand and meet the needs of all community members, which fosters inclusivity and trust.

Having a workforce comprising predominantly older white males makes it challenging to recruit and retain female and non-white employees. The workforce also is significantly ageing. The workforce in both councils’ parks services lacks diversity, particularly in gender. For example, 15% of Islington’s green space staff is female; this is just 7% for grounds maintenance staff. Further, no senior management members are women, so resulting in a dearth of role models, which further renders the sector unattractive to female candidates and perpetuates a gender imbalance.

Having a more diverse, inclusive culture and workforce is a priority in both councils. Islington’s parks service, for example, has established a gender equalities action group to address this. One area the action group has identified as a barrier is how job titles and job descriptions are presented. For example, they found that job titles for a “semi-skilled operative” and job descriptions specifying heavy lifting as part of the role could be off-putting to potential applicants and notably did not result in many applications from women. As such, they are looking to change the title.

“You don’t want to be called semi-skilled, it just sounds like you’re kind of a bit rubbish, but you have some skills. That person might be a gardener and, if you’re looking for gardening work, you don’t come across the term semi-skilled operative and think, ‘Oh yeah, that’s what I’m looking for.’” (Islington Council respondent)

3.5.4 Revenue funding

Funding schemes for parks and green spaces typically focus on capital improvements, yet funding for the ongoing maintenance from capital projects and for sustaining programming in parks, such as related to health and wellbeing, is rarely available. This lack of revenue funding can create more pressure on local authorities and limit the benefit of capital investment due to lack of capacity for sustained maintenance.

“If you keep improving the quality of your green spaces through capital infrastructure, eventually there becomes a point where something gives. That playground that was lovely suddenly needs a new replacement swing. You can’t fund it because you don’t have the revenue. It’s a very, very bad cycle and … it’s across the country. If investment from central government in terms of capital infrastructure doesn’t come with revenue, don’t bother.” (Islington Council respondent)

Inflation coupled with time-consuming bureaucratic processes also negatively affects capital investments. Respondents said that, although they may be given budgets for new capital projects, by the time they get to the delivery phase, the costs have increased and the budgets are no longer sufficient.

3.5.5 Current funding model

Although recognised for innovative parks services, Islington’s and Leeds’s continued success is not guaranteed. Respondents said the current funding model, with public parks funded primarily from local authority revenue budgets, is structurally unsustainable and expressed concern that their current success temporarily masked significant financial issues. Between 2010-2021, U.K. public parks experienced a £690 million decline in funding over a sustained period of time (APSE, 2021). With deep cuts to local authority budgets – and particularly discretionary budgets, like parks – there is increasing pressure for parks services to be self-sustaining, including through income-generation and community contributions, such as volunteer labour.

Rather than short-term schemes, largely aimed at capital investment, respondents said a structural and strategic reimagining of green space-related finance is needed, including the role of central government in delivering what is framed as a local – even a hyperlocal – service.

“We need to get much smarter about not just a universal ask for money. Look at what active travel has done under Chris Boardman, just really clear programmes. It’ll take 25 years, but a clear sense of joining this stuff up is needed. … It feels like we’re just trying to push a rock up a hill when it doesn’t need to be like that at all. We should focus effort that goes into trying to make these little things that happen into much bigger scale, much bigger ambition, much bigger possibilities. And I don’t think it does need tons of money.” (Leeds charity respondent)

Respondents understood the realities of local government finances, with most expressing an acceptance that significant funding increases for parks and green spaces in their current structure will not occur. Yet, they described how budget and staffing pressures weigh heavily on them and increasingly affect their health and their capacity to perform their day-to-day jobs, with some respondents noting that staff sickness levels had increased due to the pressure.

Several respondents questioned the resource-consuming process of applying for limited funding schemes, which are highly competitive and pull staff from other tasks. This, they said, further illustrates the need for more structural changes.

“What’s needed is long-term, future generations-focused, asset-based – whether it’s endowments or other stuff – long-term teams who are able to lead on this stuff. A local authority is a great place to start, but it’s really difficult to do that when they’re on their knees.” (Leeds charity respondent)

4. Moving forward

4.1 Building on Islington’s and Leeds’s success

Islington Council and Leeds City Council serve as instructive cases of successful parks services. While local context matters in delivering and managing local parks and green spaces, lessons can be learned and inspiration drawn from Islington’s and Leeds’s experiences.

Respondents from Islington and Leeds expressed confidence that much of the success they’ve experienced and good practices they’ve established can be replicated or can serve as policy inspiration for other local authorities. Indeed, sharing successful practices aligns with the parks and green spaces sector’s collaborative and knowledge-sharing approach.

“There are core basic things that we do that are absolutely replicable. It’s about the way we try and operate as a service and build those partnerships and position ourselves strategically. It’s a way of working – it’s not necessarily reliant on the resources, but on a culture. It’s about an attitude.” (Islington Council respondent)

Yet, at the same time, they recognised the wide variations in context and circumstance in local authorities across the country. During this review, respondents also were quick to emphasise that they do not have all the answers for establishing and maintaining a successful parks service. Indeed, while Islington and Leeds have experienced success in their park services and delivery of green spaces for their residents, continued success is not guaranteed. Respondents were frank in their discussions about tough decisions that their local authorities had already taken and those that are yet to come.

Based on this review and the input from council officers, elected councillors, and representatives of community and third-sector organisations in Islington and Leeds, recommendations for moving forward are proposed below. These recommendations align with a key theme from the review: support from a range of diverse actors is fundamental to realising and sustaining successful working methods for local authority parks teams.

4.2 Recommendations for central government

1. Enable transformational change by focusing on strategic support, rather than short-term capital, to local governments.

While all funding is welcome, creating new green spaces and facilities can burden local authorities with long-term maintenance costs that they do not have the revenue to sustain and can diminish capacity for maintaining existing parks and green spaces. This has potential to create a greater financial problem for a council, while also possibly have a detrimental impact on local residents due to poor or inconsistent quality.  

• Prioritise funding for capacity-building and transformative initiatives, such as reconceptualising how parks and green spaces are integrated throughout a local authority’s services. While some transformative funding exists — such as Future Parks Accelerator funding, which Islington secured — it is limited. Respondents expressed reluctance to invest time and resources into grant applications with low success rates and that do not include maintenance funding.
• Streamline funding application processes and reconsider how criteria are weighted to avoid favouring already successful local authorities. Indeed, funding often preferences already successful local authorities, potentially creating a two-tier system where some gain visibility and further funding, while others fall behind (Smith et al., 2023).

2. Collaborate with the green spaces sector to address the skills shortage.

A key concern raised by respondents is a skills shortage, which is affecting local authorities’ ability to deliver parks and green spaces. The crisis stems from a reduction in staff capacity, skills, and expertise and is exacerbated by low pay, limited career progression, lack of professional recognition, difficulty in gaining transferable skills, poor workforce diversity, and shifting needed skill-sets. Addressing the skills shortage is impossible solely at the local level; central government support is crucial to developing availability of the educational, professional and technical skills needed, and the viability of the green spaces sector as a career path.

• Work with local authorities and relevant organisations to identify needed skills and training programmes.
• Bring together educators and employers (including local authorities) to establish an action plan for improving skills development.
• Explore a national approach to skills development against a set of competencies that learning providers can design study programmes to meet.
• Work with relevant partners to develop greater diversity within the sector and training and education programmes.

3. Coordinate across departments to optimise central government assistance and resources.

Respondents noted that central government support is available from multiple departments and organisations, but occurs in a siloed, duplicative way.

• Combine resources across central government departments and national-level park-related funding organisations to deliver greater impact.
• Focus combined resources on developing grants and funding opportunities designed to facilitate more strategic transformation across the green spaces sector, with long-term impacts that improve local authority parks teams’ resiliency.
• Establish a permanent cross-departmental working group or designate a national-level parks and green spaces champion to coordinate across the multiple organisations, similar to what central government has set up for active travel with the creation of Active Travel England.

4.3 Recommendations for local government

1. Embed green spaces within the local authority’s core strategies.

Connecting the multifunctional benefits of parks and green spaces with broader council functions enhances the delivery of council priorities and signals that these spaces are essential infrastructure for the community and the environment.

• Reconceptualise parks and green spaces as one component contributing to the council’s wider greening efforts.
• Identify how parks and green spaces support functions and services across the council, going beyond their amenity benefits.
• Actively involve the parks team throughout processes of developing council core strategies and setting priorities.
• Formalise parks contributions to core strategies through policies adopted by the council executive and communicated council wide.
• Organisationally connect the parks team with other teams with relevant statutory responsibilities (e.g., health, climate).
• Engage the parks team with all relevant portfolio-holders (e.g., health, climate, environment, highways).
• Define a clear vision for the parks service, including establishing realistic expectations about the capacity for parks teams, and green spaces themselves, to deliver everything for everyone.

2. Establish a collaborative way of working focused on shared outcomes.

Parks services cannot single-handedly address the continually increasing demands on and expectations of parks and green spaces. They need partners, both internally within the council and through external collaborations. A diverse range of organisations and charities, from international to neighbourhood levels, can contribute as partners in parks delivery in varying capacities. Establishing a partnership approach focused on collectively delivering outcomes can leverage the capacities, expertise and resources of this diverse network of actors.

• Identify synergies between the parks team and other functional council teams that support the strategic vision and core strategies and encourage collaborative cross-team working.
• Provide physical, proximate space to facilitate internal collaboration and to foster spontaneous interactions, which can lead to innovation (Storper and Venables, 2004).
• Support the portfolio-holder for parks’ capacity to champion green spaces by keeping them informed of current opportunities, challenges and trends, and by supporting this information with evidence, data and research.
• Engage the parks team with all relevant portfolio-holders (e.g., health, climate, environment, highways) to connect the parks service more widely across the council.
• Identify building community partnerships as a key priority for the parks service, and facilitate this by providing time and resources for the parks team to meet and engage regularly with a diverse range of partners.
• Be open to establishing relationships and collaborating with a diverse range of partners, including organisations that may not have typically worked with a council parks team in the past.
• Protect resources to provide council staff dedicated to community engagement and outreach – including working with community partners – and communicate to senior leaders the importance of paid professionals in supporting and supervising community volunteers.
• Provide dedicated on-site, community-engagement staff in key parks and green spaces throughout the borough or city and hire staff skilled in outreach.
• Prioritise connecting with communities, publics and residents who engage least, or do not engage at all, with parks and green spaces. Invest time in listening to them to understand the barriers they face in accessing green space. Design custom experiences that respect their concerns and that introduce them to parks and green spaces in ways that fit their needs.
• Improve inclusivity by working with diverse communities, organisations, businesses and residents. Communicate the need for inclusivity to active partners, such as friends’ groups, especially if they express concern that the parks team is neglecting them.
• Empower the community in decision-making, including engaging them during policy or proposal development and not solely consulting at the end of decision-making processes. Involve the community on immediate plans and proposals, as well as on long-term plans, such as master planning, developing park actions plans, and identifying funding opportunities.

3. Focus on improving the quality of parks and green spaces.

Public parks that meet designated quality standards are linked to enhanced visitor experiences and greater satisfaction and well-being (Barker et al., 2017). Parks and green spaces that are not well-maintained can serve as a barrier to access and have a negative impact on mental health and wellbeing (PfL, 2022b). Creating new green spaces and focusing on capital investment does not lead to sustained benefits if these spaces and facilities are not maintained in the long term. As such, local authorities should prioritise sustained quality improvement.

• Develop quality standards that are tailored to the local context and conditions. Consult with established quality standards, such as those used by the Green Flag Award or those developed by other local authorities, as a guide.
• Assess all council parks and green spaces using this standard during a designated time frame.
• Use results of the assessments to prioritise quality improvement and investment in those parks and green spaces determined to be of low quality.
• Consult with community partners and residents in developing the quality standard and in conducting quality assessments.
• Work with community partners as well as relevant organisations and charities to identify investment and funding opportunities for improving park and green space quality, including spaces identified as deficient by quality assessments.
• Retain data from quality assessments to use as a baseline for subsequent assessments to measure whether quality has improved.
• Use collated data from city/borough-wide assessments to identify common issues that need strategic attention and investment.
• Update council policies, objectives and metrics to emphasise improving quality. Revise references to quantity of green space to include the need to consider quality alongside quantity.
• Communicate the benefits of focusing on quality rather than quantity to community organisations and residents. Communicate this, as well, to council leadership, providing data and research that demonstrates the value of quality spaces and that highlights the impacts of quality improvements to local parks and green spaces. Work with council leadership and community organisations to shift mindset from highlighting ribbon-cuttings of new green spaces and capital projects to celebrating and publicising quality improvements.
• Establish maintenance processes based on quality outcomes and communicate this to all relevant staff, including parks maintenance, housing and highways staff, as well as to community partners, such as friends’ groups, who conduct maintenance in parks and green spaces.

4. Use data, evidence and research to drive decision-making.

Informed decision-making grounded in data, evidence and research should guide operational, strategy and investment decisions. Doing so facilitates identifying priorities, establishing a clear vision for the parks team, allocating resources, and planning long term. Further, research contributes to exploring innovative ideas, identifying good practices and building a business case for entrepreneurial activities.

• Collect data and evidence that quantifies the value community partners add to the parks service.
• Collect data and evidence that quantifies the impact of community-engagement staff and communicate this data to decision-makers to emphasise the amplified value paid professionals who support and supervise community volunteers provide.
• Collect data and evidence demonstrating the breadth of parks-relevant activities enabled by the parks team, going beyond those activities directly provided by parks staff, thus capturing the actual value provided by the parks service.
• Use data and evidence to inform strategic planning, such as using data collected via quality assessments to guide long-term planning and investment decisions.
• Collect data and evidence demonstrating how parks and green spaces, and the parks team, contribute to achieving council strategies and priorities and activities of other council functional teams (e.g., health, housing, highways, adult and child social care, etc.).
• Collaborate with community partners and develop partnerships with university researchers, think tanks and charities to collect data and conduct research that supports the parks service’s priorities.
• Strengthen communication with senior leadership, including councillors and the council executive, with data-driven evidence. Communicate evidence- and research-based work to council leadership via briefings, regular updates, and inclusion in proposals and policy development.

5. Nurture an innovative, forward-thinking and trusting organisational culture.

Given the continually evolving demands on parks and green spaces and the challenging financial environment for local authorities, local authorities should create a dynamic environment that empowers the parks team to take research-based risks and experiment with new ideas.

• Encourage the parks team to take risks and try out new ideas, based in research.
• Allow the parks team to dedicate time and space to research to stay abreast of trends and issues in the sector and to identify opportunities for innovation and entrepreneurialism.
• Maintain an open-minded approach to the viability of council-run commercial activities rather than assuming organisations other than the local authority are by default a better option.
• Allow the parks team to retain and reinvest income generated by their commercial and entrepreneurial activities.
• Collaborate with community organisations, local businesses and other relevant organisations to develop innovative ideas. Allow these actors to take the lead, with the council providing support as needed.
• Reduce bureaucratic barriers to foster innovation and to streamline processes that facilitate internal and external partnerships.
• Align all innovative, commercial and entrepreneurial activities with the local context and conditions, including of a specific green space itself, as well as of the local community.
• Maintain regular, transparent communication between the parks service and council leadership, including the portfolio-holder. Foster an honest, frank dialogue, where the parks team is encouraged to discuss their successes as well as their initiatives that did not succeed without fear of repercussions.

4.4 Concluding thoughts

As the experience of Islington and Leeds demonstrates, developing successful parks-delivery practices requires sustained support and long-term commitment. The shift in attitude required, not just within the local authority, but also amongst community groups and other organisations, businesses, and residents, does not happen overnight. While by no means a magic bullet, the organisational, policy and practical approaches identified in this review can improve capacity to successfully deliver high-quality parks and green spaces.

Local authorities interested in emulating Islington’s and Leeds’s success should be encouraged by the experiences the two local authorities provide. Adopting ideas from others can lower administrative costs and expedite implementation compared to starting from scratch. This approach is particularly attractive given the uncertain budgets and limited resources within which discretionary parks services operate. Many of the practices identified in this review are low-cost interventions that require a shift in culture and focus rather than an increase in resources. Local authorities could pilot some of these recommendations, providing time to try them out and allowing for adjustments based on initial outcomes.

However, models of good practice and policy inspiration must be interpreted and applied through a lens of local context to be successful elsewhere. Indeed, policy mobility research emphasises that a policy or practice is not transferred ready-to-wear, rather a policy’s implementation and outcomes are shaped by the specific context in which it is applied (Affolderbach and Schulz, 2018). As such, attempts to merely copy good practices “without considering organizational and local conditions” are unlikely to be successful (Wu et al., 2023: 136). 

Because parks and green spaces offer diverse, multifunctional benefits, there can be an unrealistic expectation that these spaces can do everything at once. In a climate of limited resources and budget constraints, this can have a deflating effect on those who provide and those who use these spaces. Yet, Islington and Leeds have shown the importance of being strategic, having a clear vision and priorities, and fostering working relationships with partners who can help parks and green spaces contribute to achieving shared council and community outcomes.

As this review highlights, Islington and Leeds are by no means without their challenges. But, acknowledging these challenges and striving to work through them, such as encouraging innovation and taking action to diversify the workforce, demonstrate an earnest commitment that is fundamental to a successful parks service. Respondents in Islington and Leeds expressed a desire to constantly improve by learning from others. Likewise, local authorities across the country can benefit from the experience of Islington and Leeds.

5. References

Citation for this review:

Whitten, M. (2024). Sustaining success: A rapid evidence review on successful methods of working for parks teams. Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, London.

Affolderbach, J. and Schulz, C. (2018). Urban Sustainability and the Governance of Greening. In: Green Building Transitions. The Urban Book Series. Springer, Cham.

Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A Ladder of Citizen Participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35(4), 216–224.

Association for Public Service Excellence. (2021). State of UK Public Parks 2021.

Barker, A., Booth, N., Churchill, D. and Crawford, A. (2017). The Future Prospects of Urban Public Parks: Findings - Informing Change. Report. University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.

CABE Space (2005). Parks need people.

Camden and Islington (2022). Parks for Health Strategy 2022–2030.

Dempsey, N. (2020). Measuring the Gap Between Rhetoric and Practice: Examining Urban Green Space Interventions Post-implementation. In: Dempsey, N., Dobson, J. (eds) Naturally Challenged: Contested Perceptions and Practices in Urban Green Spaces. Cities and Nature. Springer, Cham.

Islington Council (2022). Islington and Camden councils announce shared vision to harness health benefits of parks and green spaces.

Islington Council (n.d.). Highbury Fields.

Leeds City Council (2024). Leeds Parks and Green Spaces Strategy progress update, 21 March 2024.

Leeds City Council (n.d.). Roundhay Park.

London Green Spaces Commission (2020). London Green Spaces Commission Report.

Office for National Statistics (2023a). How life has changed in Islington: Census 2021.

Office for National Statistics (2023b). How life has changed in Leeds: Census 2021.

Parks for London (2022a). Good Parks for London.

Parks for London (2022b). Young, Green, and Well: A research study on young Londoners’ green space use and mental wellbeing.

Smith, A., Whitten, M. and Ernwein, M. (2023). De-municipalisation? Legacies of austerity for England’s urban parks. The Geographical Journal, Online Version of Record before inclusion in an issue.

Storper, M. and Venables, A.J. (2004). Buzz: face-to-face contact and the urban economy. Journal of Economic Geography, 4(4), 351-370.

University of Leeds (2019). Charitable giving to parks and green spaces: Public and business opinion in Leeds, UK.

Whitten, M. (2019). Blame it on austerity? Examining the impetus behind London’s changing green space governance. People, Place and Policy, 12(3), 204–224.

Wu, J., Liu, Y. and Bretschneider, S. (2023). Best practice is not just “best”: An empirical study based on judges’ perceptions. Urban Governance, 3(2), 130-137.

1. Full list: Islington Local Plan, Islington Together 2030 Plan, Islington (and Camden) Parks for Health Strategy, Islington Core Strategy, Islington Biodiversity Action Plan, Islington Active Together Strategy, Leeds Parks and Green Spaces Strategy, Leeds Health and Wellbeing Strategy, Leeds Better Lives Strategy, Leeds Best City Ambition, Leeds People Strategy, Leeds Financial Strategy. ↩

2. Future Parks Accelerator is a collaboration between the National Lottery Heritage Fund, the National Trust and MHCLG. It aims to support local authorities to improve quality, sustainability, connectivity and access to urban green space. ↩