What will be the next move for the greatest flower show on Earth?

Is the ‘fallow year’ of Virtual Chelsea a chance for a creative reset? Tim Richardson asked Britain’s top gardeners for ideas

Yesterday should have been the final day of Chelsea Flower Show, after a week of worldclass horticultural excitement. But Covid-19 put a halt to all that, along with other RHS shows, now cancelled or postponed until September. However, the gap in the schedule offers instead the opportunity for new ideas about the future direction of the show.

There is no doubt that Chelsea has felt somewhat denuded in recent years, as sponsorship declines, show-garden numbers drop and smaller specialist nurseries desert the plant marquee – though the show has remained as popular as ever in terms of visitor numbers.

“Let’s be honest, there isn’t going to be a lot of money sloshing around next May, is there?” says the ever-candid garden designer Ann-Marie Powell.

“That’s money for show gardens, exhibitors, nurseries, and for the RHS to fill in any gaps. So I’m hoping this [lockdown] will be a chance for the RHS to do a huge reset.” And as renowned designer Dan Pearson says: “The current model feels so out of tune with where we should be focusing energy… Now more than ever, the smaller growers should be supported and the focus re-oriented; the media coverage has really been hijacked by the corporate side of things.”

Indeed, the state of the plant marquee at Chelsea is the issue that excites most concern. It’s difficult to find nurseries willing to comment, but Derry Watkins (of Special Plants in Wiltshire) is happy to speak out:

“I hadn’t been to Chelsea since 1999 and went last year,” she says. “I found there was a profound lack of interesting plants, with very few nurseries exhibiting their specialities. I came away with one picture of a flower and several of interesting seed heads. I won’t be going back. Some of the show gardens had interesting plants, but it’s not the same: it’s tricky even to find the names of the plants, much less figure out where to get them.”

Her remedy? “I think the RHS should sponsor small specialist nurseries to put on small specialist exhibits. The big commercial guys will do it for the publicity, and some of it is amazing, but the little guys can’t afford to put in the time and effort.” Among others suggesting financial incentives for smaller nurseries are garden writer Anna Pavord (“a special bursary?”) and Tom Hoblyn (“Chelsea wouldn’t be Chelsea without a marquee brimful of perfect plants”).

Tom Stuart-Smith agrees: “The RHS needs urgently to find a way of encouraging the best British nurseries to stay, or return, or come in the first place to Chelsea. No Avon Bulbs or Kelways or Blackmore & Langdon last year – a great shame.”

Andy Sturgeon says: “The saving of the nursery exhibitors is the most important thing. Maybe they should be paid to exhibit, or maybe it should be easier for people to buy plants at the show? Perhaps a centralised click and collect system?” (Nurseries have the option to sell plants at Chelsea, but space for stock is limited.)

Dan Pearson has an even more radical solution: “Could the number of show gardens be reduced by half to allow for support to the specialist growers? Main Avenue being rebalanced, for instance, and the marquee being wrapped by growers on three sides who are given the opportunity to do plant sales… Think the Great Dixter Plant Fair – a celebration of the eclectic, what makes the UK so remarkable.”

There is support for this refocus on plants, perhaps surprisingly, from Andrew Wilson, who was for years supremo of the RHS’s show-garden judges. “Gardens with a much greater emphasis on plants and planting design would automatically be more sustainable, cheaper to produce, more easily redistributed at the end of the show or sold off to visitors, and perhaps more in line with the RHS remit of delivering horticulture,” he reflects. “The drama would be reduced, but perhaps a more diverse range of sponsors might be attracted.”

Lack of sponsorship indeed lies at the root of concerns about the show’s future. “There were 23 show gardens in 2000, and just 11 in 2018,” observes Anna Pavord. “Naturally, the sponsors want value for money so, increasingly, what gardens there are pulsate in a frenzy of [corporate] meaningfulness … I don’t really see a way out of this problem.”

Andrew Wilson adds: “Linked to this is the now wing-clipped financial sector. Corporate entertainment and hospitality is much more restricted, meaning that they in turn have had to explore new pastures. It’s difficult to see how this will return, but gardens don’t have to be huge blockbusters to engage and excite.”

Tom Hoblyn agrees that there may be an upside. “Charity and fundraising gardens on shoestring budgets may become more commonplace, which could be a good thing as it will truly test a designer’s skills, not being able to hide behind expensive, precious things.”

Meanwhile for Andy Sturgeon, it’s the sponsors themselves which may be at issue: “Chelsea is in danger of becoming too parochial when it should be global, attracting prestige brands