The Alton Towers Gardens

[rob666]

There is no magic wand with the gardens.
The weeds are now deep rooted in, under and around what is left of the alpines and fine shrubs, and under the rockery.
To remove them isn't a quick one off job, it would take three or four years to just remove the weeds alone in a garden of that style.
They have been well and truly ruined.
Gary, by 2000 the gardens were in a real state compared to the early eighties, a lot of the plants in your photo are actually hard pruned weeds, hypericum (rose of sharon) in particular, they look ok, but actually kill the decent plants around them very quickly.

 

[jon81uk]

Alton could easily open the gardens/towers/conservatories in Jan/Feb and put half the proceeds back into the park.

I don’t think it would be easy, need to ensure a safe route to access the park including salting paths as January conditions are poor, then have staff to check the tickets and similar. Plus as noted the gardens in the winter with no leaves and no flowers aren’t pretty. Would probably actually be the hardest time of year to open.

 

[ScottishChris]

I don’t think it would be easy, need to ensure a safe route to access the park including salting paths as January conditions are poor, then have staff to check the tickets and similar. Plus as noted the gardens in the winter with no leaves and no flowers aren’t pretty. Would probably actually be the hardest time of year to open.

Whilst I agree totally that January is a very poor time to open, opening the gardens and towers for the week before the park opens is very much something that could be done. So if that were this year opening from 11th-15th March could be something that is viable. If it were me, I would sell "tours" to coach companies - £15 entry per person (maybe £50 pp wit an afternoon tea!)- and it could all be pre-organised and planned. I have little doubt they would sell out as it would really be the only opportunity the Stately Home enthusiasts would have to visit.

This all said - before such a visit the gardens would need quite a bit of TLC.

On a side note, my favourite ever visit to Towers is probably the one during Covid. Just relaxing and having a nice time in the gardens with friends is really a core memory. Due to the park hours, most of my Towers visits do tend to be a bit stressful running from place to place.

 

[Kraken27]

The state of the gardens is a crying shame. The rot started slowly in the Tussauds era & accelerated as fast as Rita under Merlin. The spreadsheet guru bean-counters just ask “what return on investment will this spend get?” and when it comes to gardens, the figures are way too low.

As above, a real shame as the restoration work they have done on the conservatory & prospect tower is top-notch. Admittedly, this was forced on them as Section 106 agreements to get planning permission for rides. No way did Merlin spend this money out of choice.

Historically the gardens were a big attraction in their own right. My Mum was schooled in Derbyshire & one of the school trips was always Alton Towers for the gardens (long before the days of the funfair in the grounds).

 

[Dave]

The state of the gardens is a crying shame. The rot started slowly in the Tussauds era & accelerated as fast as Rita under Merlin. The spreadsheet guru bean-counters just ask “what return on investment will this spend get?” and when it comes to gardens, the figures are way too low.

As above, a real shame as the restoration work they have done on the conservatory & prospect tower is top-notch. Admittedly, this was forced on them as Section 106 agreements to get planning permission for rides. No way did Merlin spend this money out of choice.

Historically the gardens were a big attraction in their own right. My Mum was schooled in Derbyshire & one of the school trips was always Alton Towers for the gardens (long before the days of the funfair in the grounds).

Towers tend to suggest the 106 agreements, it’s a tit for tat to get planning permission. In many ways the 106 agreements make things worse for heritage as it’s in Towers interests to hold back restorations until they need planning permission for something so they can bargain instead of just sorting everything out.

That said the foliage in the gardens is a different matter, I am surprised English Heritage have allowed it as the gardens are more heavily protected than the house.

 

[ScottishChris]

Towers tend to suggest the 106 agreements, it’s a tit for tat to get planning permission. In many ways the 106 agreements make things worse for heritage as it’s in Towers interests to hold back restorations until they need planning permission for something so they can bargain instead of just sorting everything out.

That said the foliage in the gardens is a different matter, I am surprised English Heritage have allowed it as the gardens are more heavily protected than the house.

The absolutely mad thing is that maintaining the gardens would actually not be that expensive. We have a stately home near by who have a number of work programs, apprentices and volunteers doing a great job keeping the grounds tip-top. The current apprenticeship wage is £5.28 p/h, work programmes are usually funded by government, so the maintenance of the gardens [in terms of labour] is low-cost. The issue is desire. I genuinely feel that Towers don't see them as an asset, hence the unwillingness to maintain them to the levels they should.

 

[jon81uk]

The absolutely mad thing is that maintaining the gardens would actually not be that expensive. We have a stately home near by who have a number of work programs, apprentices and volunteers doing a great job keeping the grounds tip-top. The current apprenticeship wage is £5.28 p/h, work programmes are usually funded by government, so the maintenance of the gardens [in terms of labour] is low-cost. The issue is desire. I genuinely feel that Towers don't see them as an asset, hence the unwillingness to maintain them to the levels they should.

But to offer an apprenticeship you also need to train the apprentice and although there is government funding it can be multi-year commitment to teach someone. Not sure that would be easier than just employing people who are already qualified.

 

[GooseOnTheLoose]

But to offer an apprenticeship you also need to train the apprentice and although there is government funding it can be multi-year commitment to teach someone. Not sure that would be easier than just employing people who are already qualified.

They do have apprenticeships schemes in the engineering department, so it's not beyond the realms of possibility that they could offer one here. They'd need to invest in the programme though, as you've said, and ensure that the people who are giving the training are sufficiently qualified themselves.

 

[ScottishChris]

But to offer an apprenticeship you also need to train the apprentice and although there is government funding it can be multi-year commitment to teach someone. Not sure that would be easier than just employing people who are already qualified.

It's not as challenging as you think. They would need to offer one day per week for off-the job training. There are also lots of standards that can be applied to such a role. You would be looking at 24 months for a Landscaping Operative, or 12 months for a Countryside Worker.

There are many advantages to going down the apprenticeship route - a great example would be giving seasonal staff access to training and long term job opertunities. I suppose the greatest benefit to the company I'd the cost of employing apprentices is massively cheaper, and outputs per £1 spent is magnitudes greater.

They'd need to invest in the programme though, as you've said, and ensure that the people who are giving the training are sufficiently qualified themselves.

This is a bit of a common mistake. You need someone 'competent to be a mentor/ supervisor. The program would be conducted by a certified training provider who would be an external organisation.

The investment you talk about is minimal, its motivation and willingness that's key. I've had apprentices absolutely fly because they have been in supportive environments. I have also had to deal with situations where apprentices have been with the most capable people, yet those people don't buy into the program.

I could go on for days about appreiceships... but I feel the threads topic is going in an alternate direction

 

[GooseOnTheLoose]

The investment you talk about is minimal, its motivation and willingness that's key. I've had apprentices absolutely fly because they have been in supportive environments. I have also had to deal with situations where apprentices have been with the most capable people, yet those people don't buy into the program.

Sorry, I meant invest as in give the programme an actual full fronted go, rather than financial investment. Invest in the development of the programme to deliver the best for the apprentices.

This is a bit of a common mistake. You need someone 'competent to be a mentor/ supervisor. The program would be conducted by a certified training provider who would be an external organisation.

Good old City & Guilds?

 

[jon81uk]

It's not as challenging as you think. They would need to offer one day per week for off-the job training. There are also lots of standards that can be applied to such a role. You would be looking at 24 months for a Landscaping Operative, or 12 months for a Countryside Worker.

Yes but I don't think it is the quick fix for the gardens, its shouldn't just be seen as a route to employing someone on lower pay which is what seemed to be suggested in the first post. Ideally it should be "we have a team of three people who know what they doing but we want two more staff, how can we attract them"

 

[ScottishChris]

its shouldn't just be seen as a route to employing someone on lower pay

I hear this argument a lot regarding apprenticeships and it genuinely angers me. Yes, an apprentice is generally employed on lower pay, however they are an unskilled person who would then be put onto a genuine national qualification, earning experience and being paid to boot. I went to uni, I had to pay to go, I came out with theory and no experience - there is a reason why people who have done apprenticeships are massively more likely to be employed post-qualification.

Whilst I strongly believe having an apprenticeship scheme for the gardens would benefit the park, the local area (offering educational opportunities) and the apprentices involved this wasn't actually the point I was making. My point was that there are ways to keep the gardens looking great for not a huge expense, but Towers genuinely don't seem to have any desire to look after them to the standard they should.

 

[Steve74]

Such a shame to see the gardens in this state


From: https://x.com/Greg_Pearn/status/1841125816656412771

 

[Rob]

It's shameful. They can moan all they like about people vandalising the Towers but they have in effect vandalised the gardens themselves due to a complete lack of upkeep. These are Grade I listed as well, sure they're not all quite as bad as that particular area of the gardens, but they really should be ashamed for letting them get as bad as they have.

 

[GooseOnTheLoose]

Incoming Leek Signage:

"At Alton Towers we care very much about our heritage, which is why we're slowly letting the gardens return to their natural state. This will have massive ecological benefits for the area, and ensure that we can preserve our gardens for future generations to come."

 

[Dobba]

If only Leek Signs did original jokes.

 

[Squiggs]

Incoming Leek Signage:

"At Alton Towers we care very much about our heritage, which is why we're slowly letting the gardens return to their natural state. This will have massive ecological benefits for the area, and ensure that we can preserve our gardens for future generations to come."

You joke, but there was a line on the Garden Tour that read a little bit like that.

Not intentionally I think, but it's hard not to infer that meaning when talking about the biodiversity attracted to the gardens when stood next to the Canal in its current weed-laden state.

Honestly, I think they may have missed a trick when they linked Project Horizon to the restoration of the Orangery. It's the Cascade, Rock Garden and Canal in most desperate need of restoration right now.

 

[GooseOnTheLoose]

You joke, but there was a line on the Garden Tour that read a little bit like that.

Not intentionally I think, but it's hard not to infer that meaning when talking about the biodiversity attracted to the gardens when stood next to the Canal in its current weed-laden state.

Honestly, I think they may have missed a trick when they linked Project Horizon to the restoration of the Orangery. It's the Cascade, Rock Garden and Canal in most desperate need of restoration right now.

I can absolutely believe that. There is a generational push back, in some circles, against manicured gardens and concerns on the impact of biodiversity. That being said, if it's good enough for Kew at Wakehurst there's not much of an excuse for Towers here.

Plus, you know, encouraging thousands of people a day, to drive their fossil-fuel-guzzling-metal-boxes hundreds of miles to visit and energy intensive theme park, kind of puts a dent in your green credentials.

 

[BarryZola]

Yeah, grade 1 listed gardens such as this are not the places for 're-wilding' or whatever they're calling it. It's potentially causing permanent damage and it's worrying. The gardens havn't been maintained properly for going on 10-15 years+ now due to not employing enough staff. The photos above have been taken from different distances however, so it's not an entirely accurate comparison, but it is bad.

 

[rob666]

Sorry Mr Zola, I would say the problems started within five years of Corky opening, so around 1985 was when the nice annual flower beds and well pruned valley started to "grow out", as it is known...the big stuff bullies out the small, and the weeds slowly take over.
Every garden goes the same way if not managed.
Ref...The Trees by Rush.
So by my dodgy maths, that is around forty years of gradual decline.