Kings College introduced charges in March 1994 following a trial period in 1993, primarily as a means of regulating visitor pressures. Previously, footmats had recorded approximately 1 million people per year going into the Chapel, with an estimated visitor total of 500- 600,000 per annum. In the first year of charges (March 1994-March 1995) there were some 325,000 visitors. All of the approximately £300,000 income after deduction of running costs has been used for maintaining the College buildings; the cost of maintaining and operating the Chapel is about £1 ,000 per day.

By introducing charges, the College has succeeded in its objectives:

• to control visitor pressures: where it used to be inundated with coach parties at 11 a.m, visitors can now be admitted in manageable groups (although the numbers are still sometimes intolerable in summer);
• tourists now contribute a large proportion of the cost of maintaining the Chapel, the principal attraction they come to visit; where previously they brought little benefit to the College.

While regulation and charging have brought benefits to the College, this is only part of the story. To charge for admission, you need a controlled entrance and charging point, and management measures in place to direct visitors to it, manage queues etc. Visitors arriving at the Porter’s Lodge are now directed away to the north along King’s Parade, past the Senate House, and round to the College’s Glare gate opposite the north door of the Chapel. When the College introduced atnal control period in 1993, a planning application was submitted for a very basic timber kiosk on the stone paving adjoining the gate, for a temporary period, as the basis for gaining experience. The application was refused on the grounds of unacceptable intrusion into a townscape setting of national importance.

My thanks to Derek Buxton of Kings College for the information on visitors and income

The College would like to bring its visitors from the Porters Lodge to the north side of the Chapel by a more direct route, along the east side of Wilkins’ Screen, past the east end of the Chapel, through the existing railings, and so westwards between the Chapel and the Old Schools. This would involve providing a new path alongside the Screen, where now the Grade I listed buildings rise directly from the lawn; to introduce lines of people here would radically change the character of the spaces (not least because of the difficulty of preventing visitors spreading across the previously sacrosanct lawns), the setting of the listed buildings, and the conservation area.

The idea of providing a new permanent structure (whetheras charging point only, or as both charging point and shop) raises very difficult issues in terms of siting and design. How, with the best will in the world, can you provide what can only be a relatively small and low-key functional structure in such a way that it will relate well to buildings and spaces of grand scale and international importance?

Students from the Architecture Faculty were set the challenge, and came up with some interesting ideas (including providing a shop built against a northwards continuation of the screen) but much more than interesting ideas would be needed to make a case for any intrusion into this setting. Another factor would be the reactions of the University authorities occupying the Old Schools (and in particular the vice-chancellor whose office faces out towards Kings) to the intrusion of more or less orderly queues of visitors into their pleasant prospect’

In conclusion, one further consideration to bear in mind in relation to charging is the possible displacement effect. With St John’s, Trinity, Glare, Kings, and Queens’ colleges all now charging foradmission, other Colleges may start to feel the pressure..