Between January and March 2020, the KLPA and other swimming associations representing Heath swimmers participated in a consultation with the City of London on the future management of the swimming ponds on Hampstead Heath. We remain opposed to the decision taken by the City on 11 March 2020 to increase charges by 100% for a standard ticket and 140% for concessions and to replace ‘self-policed’ charges with an enforced compulsory payment system. We have summarised below the background to the consultation and its outcome.
Subsequently, the City of London has imposed further increases in charges which we continue to oppose and which we believe have a disproportionate impact on swimmers qualifying for concessionary rates.
Please see Visitor Information for details of current charges.
HISTORY
The Hampstead Heath Bathing Ponds were originally created in the 17th and 18th centuries as reservoirs to meet London’s growing demand for water. Over time, some of the Heath’s ponds were repurposed for swimming – used mainly by male swimmers – until, in 1926, one pond was designated as a women-only space.
LEGAL BACKGROUND
In 1989, following the abolition of the GLC in 1986, the City of London took over the running of Hampstead Heath and ownership of the freehold from the London Residuary Body.
Under Section 12 of the Hampstead Heath Act 1871, the body responsible for managing the Heath [currently the City of London] is obliged to ‘for ever keep the Heath open, unenclosed, and unbuilt on, except as regards such parts thereof as are at the passing of this Act enclosed or built on, and shall by all lawful means prevent, resist, and abate all encroachments and attempted encroachments on the Heath, and protect the Heath, and preserve it as an open space, and resist all proceedings tending to the enclosure or appropriation for any purpose of any part thereof.’ This obligation remains in force today.
In 2005 the City of London attempted to close the Mixed Pond (one of three swimming ponds on Hampstead Heath) as a cost-cutting measure and was prevented from doing so by public protest and action. The City also proposed to introduce compulsory charges for swimming in the ponds, which historically had always been free. In the face of fierce public opposition (documented in the film City Swimmers available to view in the KLPA gallery) the Hampstead Heath, Highgate Wood and Queen’s Park Committee finally resolved that ‘From 1 June 2005, a self-policing £2 charge (£1 concessions) and an annual payment scheme giving unlimited use for regular swimmers at all three ponds be introduced, producing an estimated income of £80,000.’
The legal background to the City being able to impose charges and control access to the swimming ponds in derogation of Section 12 of the 1871 Act, under terms of the following legislation:
Greater London Parks and Open Spaces Act 1967
Under articles 7 and 10 of the Greater London Parks and Open Spaces Order 1967, as applied by the London Government Reorganisation (Hampstead Heath) Order 1989 (the 1989 Transfer Order), the City may:
- Provide and maintain swimming baths and bathing places whether open air or indoor;
- Provide and maintain platforms, screens, seats, lockers, towels, costumes and any apparatus, appliances, equipment or conveniences that are necessary or desirable;
- Erect and maintain such related buildings or structures as they consider to be necessary or desirable;
- Set apart or enclose any part of the Heath in connection with the above and preclude any person from entering that area other than a person to whom access is permitted by them;
- Employ such persons in connection with the use or enjoyment of those facilities, do such acts and make and enforce such restrictions or conditions as they consider necessary or desirable in connection with the exercise of their powers;
- Make such reasonable charges as they think fit for the use or enjoyment of any such facilities provided by them, or the use of any such building or structure erected or maintained by them, or admission to, or the use of, any such part of the Heath set apart or enclosed by them.
The City’s legal obligations, towards staff and swimmers, for management of the swimming ponds are contained in the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974
Section 2. General duties of employers to their employees
It shall be the duty of every employer to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare at work of all his employees.
Section 3. General duties of employers and self-employed to persons other than their employees It shall be the duty of every employer to conduct his undertaking in such a way as to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that persons not in his employment who may be affected thereby are not thereby exposed to risks to their health or safety.
Note: The City is an ‘employer’ and the swimming ponds are an ‘undertaking’.
CHARGING AT THE SWIMMING PONDS (as at March 2020)
Since introducing its controversial charges in 2005, the City has regularly complained that too few swimmers have complied with the ‘self-policed’ payment regime. While a significant number of pond users continue to believe that the introduction of charges was wrong in principle, many others have concluded that it is reasonable to pay at the rate of £2 (£1 concessions) or to buy a six-month or annual season ticket. This was confirmed in a survey conducted by the swimming associations of around 1,000 regular swimmers in February 2020 in which 75% stated that they were willing to pay at then current rates.
However, as user groups have repeatedly reminded the City at every opportunity, in order to collect revenue they need to make it much easier for people to pay. The City has failed to do this in a number of ways which can be summarised as (a) practical difficulties preventing or discouraging payment, and (b) poor signage and communication. Given this failure over a fifteenyear period, swimmers received a strong impression that the City itself did not take the charges very seriously. Until lockdown on 23 March 2020 (at which point the ponds were already closed and season ticket purchase suspended), the ways in which swimmers could contribute to pond income were as follows:
Donations
Contribution Box – cash can be placed in a sealed ‘contribution’ box on site. The purpose of the box is not stated and, at the Mixed and Ladies’ Ponds, the box is not located by the payment machines. The concept of a ‘donation’ as opposed to a paid ticket is not explained, and it is therefore unclear how making a donation or contribution relates, if at all, to buying a ticket. The failure to secure the contents of the boxes, and to empty them on a daily basis, has resulted in the contents being stolen on a number of occasions.
Online – the CoL website purports to offer a method of making an online donation to the Hampstead Heath registered charity. Any intending donor would spend significant time endeavouring to make a payment online and eventually receive an instruction to send the City an email; he/she would not be able to donate online but could waste time trying and failing to do so.
Payment for tickets
Cash on site – insert two one-pound coins into a parking meter machine at or near the site entrance (and not clearly signposted or marked). No change is given and the machines are often out of order because they were not designed for this type of frequent use.
Season ticket – an alternative option for regular swimmers that, until 2019, had to be purchased in person at the Parliament Hill Lido in Gospel Oak. With minimal publicity an online payment system was introduced in 2019, but the season ticket holder received no physical ticket or pass, or even a receipt for their payment (these items can only be obtained by making a personal visit to the Lido during its opening hours, although online purchasers are not advised of this fact).
Signage
The signage is inconsistent, confused and varies without apparent reason from pond to pond. In all cases the messaging is unclear and contradictory, as are the means by which visitors might pay.
HAMPSTEAD HEATH SWIMMING REVIEW (January-March 2020)
On 7 January 2020 the City of London (CoL) initiated a review of swimming on Hampstead Heath and a consultation on management of all swimming facilities on the Heath (the Lido and three swimming ponds). Over the course of a number of formal and informal meetings and discussions with representatives of the main user groups: the Highgate Men’s Pond Association (HMPA), Kenwood Ladies’ Pond Association (KLPA), Mixed Pond Association (MPA), Parliament Hill Lido Users’ Group (PHLUG), United Swimmers Association (USA), the City unveiled its proposals for managing the swimming ponds and charging for access and use.
The CoL launched the review with the declared objective to ‘secure the long-term sustainability of the Hampstead Heath swimming facilities’, In the light of exceptional 2018 and 2019 summer seasons and a fatality at the Highgate Men’s Bathing Pond in summer 2019, taking into account:
- Health & Safety Executive advice following the death of a swimmer in June 2019
- Fulfilling responsibilities and Duty of Care towards visitors, lifeguards and wider Heath staff
- Responding to increasing demand for cold water swimming on the Heath
- Ensuring facilities are inclusive and welcoming to a diverse range of visitors
- Establishing a clear and fair charging structure that is consistent with the subsidies for recreation and sport across the Heath to ensure the financial sustainability of the swimming facilities.
Following consultative Swimming Forum meetings on 14 January and 4 and 11 February, the CoL revealed its recommendations at the Hampstead Heath Sports Forum meeting on 24 February (a meeting at which the swimming pond user groups are not normally represented, although on this occasion the chair of the KLPA was in fact invited to attend by the chair of Parliament Hill Lido User Group) and proposed the following options for a new charging model to be implemented at the swimming ponds from 2 May 2020 (annotations in bracketed italics were added by swimming groups to indicate what we understood the CoL to intend, these points were shown to CoL and none was challenged).
Option 1 – Maintain the existing ‘self-policing’ charges
A ‘self-policing’ charge would continue to be operated at the bathing ponds to collect the approved charges (see notes below) and meet the agreed level of subsidy (see notes below).
Option 2 – Adopt ‘applied’ charges – supported by Heath Rangers
Collect the approved charges from 2 May 2020 to meet the agreed level of subsidy. It is proposed that charges would be applicable at the point of entry for the bathing ponds. Heath Rangers would support the culture of payment at the ponds [and occasionally attend the ponds], this builds on the existing practice at the Mixed Pond during the summer season. [Non-payers would not be excluded.]
Option 3 – Adopt ‘applied’ charges – managed by Heath Rangers
Collect the approved charges from 2 May 2020 to meet the agreed level of subsidy. It is proposed that charges would be applicable at the point of entry for the bathing ponds. Heath Rangers will oversee and ensure payment. [Non-payers would be excluded.]
Option 4 – Adopt ‘applied’ charges – managed using a gate entry system
Collect the approved charges from 2 May 2020 to meet the agreed level of subsidy. It is proposed that charges will be applicable at the point of entry and managed using a [locked] gate entry system to ensure payment. This option would require Capital Investment and implementation would need to be phased. [Heath Rangers would still be on duty; non-payers would be excluded.]
Option 5 – Reduce the swimming offer to reduce expenditure
Introduce a morning ‘members only’ swimming club to reduce Lifeguard hours in the winter. Applying annualised hours to the Lifeguards’ work arrangements and reducing the number of swimming hours to align with the agreed subsidy and income from charges.
[N.B. For Options 3 and 4 a CoL administered ‘hardship fund’ is proposed for swimmers who cannot afford a season ticket.]
CoL officers recommended Option 3. They said: ‘This option establishes clear and fair arrangements to collect the agreed charges, in-line with the Hampstead Heath Swimming Regulations. The current Self-Policing model has not proved an effective mechanism to collect the approved charges. However, recognising the unique environments of the Bathing Ponds, this option to collect the approved charges without installing significant infrastructure should be trialled in the first instance. The CoL welcomes the opportunity to continue to collaborate with the Swimming Associations to establish a culture of payment to meet the agreed level of subsidy.’
CoL also said: ‘The Swimming Associations have robustly indicated their support for Option 1 and that the CoL implement an effective payment collection system based on voluntary contributions. In support of this approach the Associations have indicated their willingness to promote a culture of payment at the Ponds and to encourage the purchase of Season Tickets.’ In fact the swimmers’ associations had clearly campaigned in support of Option 2 (not Option 1), which they regarded as a realistic compromise with the CoL that would avoid excluding those unable to pay or who genuinely regard non-payment as a matter of principle. The associations’ active promotion of a new ‘culture of compliance’ with the existing charges and purchase of season ticket had already resulted in rapidly increasing sales of season ticket in the first two and half months of 2020 (a fact not acknowledged by CoL in any of its formal meetings or documents).
NOTES
Approved charges: The CoL proposed a range of options for charging from 2 May 2020 and recommended:
Adult day ticket £4.00 (100% increase)
Concession day ticket £2.40 (140% increase)
Season ticket (existing and new) frozen at current rates until April 2021 Free morning swims until 9.30am for over 60s and under 16s.
The CoL proposal was based on projected expenditure of £1,061,000 on the ponds in 2020/21. At the proposed rates they said they expected to generate income of £618,000 and provide a subsidy from CoL of £443,000 (42%).
Agreed subsidy: Based on the charges suggested above, the CoL recommended an agreed subsidy of £443,000 (42%) for 2020/21. With current rates of swimmer payment of charges remaining at £67,000 their subsidy of the projected costs of £1,061,000 would amount to £994,000 (94%).
These proposals were put forward for consideration by the Hampstead Heath Consultative Committee (HHCC) on 9 March at which the swimming associations were invited to make brief presentations in support of their preference for Option 2 with no increase in charges.
The HHCC (which comprises members of the local community with close ties to and knowledge of the Heath and its users and surrounding population) overwhelmingly supported adoption of Option 2 for at least a trial period of one year (to 2021) and recommended this to the Hampstead Heath, Highgate Wood & Queen’s Park Committee (the Hampstead Heath Management Committee or HHMC).
On 11 March the HHMC, which is composed largely of representatives elected by wards within the City of London (without the benefit of regular contact with the Hampstead Heath local environment and users) met at the Guildhall and voted to disregard the HHCC by approving Option 3 and increasing charges with effect from 2 May 2020, having first called on the City’s Chief Solicitor to confirm that this unprecedented action was permissible under the 1989 Transfer Order.
Although the HHMC is not legally obliged to follow the recommendations of the HHCC, it has invariably done so in the past. This is why local amenity organisations and charities, such as the Heath & Hampstead Society, the Highgate Society, the Vale of Health Society and the Hampstead Garden Suburb Residents’ Association (all of which are represented on the HHCC), all supported the City’s 2018 City of London Corporation (Open Spaces) Act, a private Act passed at the City’s request, to regulate the future management of the Heath and the commercial use of it. These organisations were assured by the City that the HHMC would always follow the clear views of the HHCC. Moreover, such an undertaking was given by City to the House of Lords Committee on the Bill (see extract from Hansard, 13 December 2017).
So, the decision by the HHMC in the present case not only disregarded all known precedent and the clearly expressed and reasoned views of the HHCC, but also breached the assurances recently given to the HHCC, its member organisations and the House of Lords.
These member organisations regard the matter very seriously and will be raising it formally when the HHCC is next able to meet in person (as opposed to convening in a virtual meeting).
THE KLPA & OTHER HEATH SWIMMING ASSOCIATIONS HAVE OUTSTANDING CONCERNS ABOUT THE PROCESS OF THE CONSULTATION & ITS OUTCOMES:
It is our firm belief that the consultation – which we entered in good faith – was consultative in name only and that the result was a foregone conclusion. However, to date we have only off the record comments from City of London staff and circumstantial evidence to support this, including tendentious information distributed by the CoL media office from the outset of the consultation (for example, the repeated assertion with no reliable data to support it that ‘under 4% of swimmers currently pay’).
We were surprised that the same CoL councillor (Karina Dostalova, member for Farringdon Within, elected in March 2017 by 184 votes in a turnout of 35.4%) chaired both the HHCC and HHMC, as well as the Swimming Forum meetings at which the consultation took place. It thus fell to the Chair of the HHCC to represent the views of that committee to the HHMC, chaired by herself. We note with interest that Ms Dostalova’s Deputy Chair, Anne Fairweather (member for Tower, also elected in March 2017, uncontested), has now assumed the Chair of the HHMC, with Ms Dostalova as Deputy Chair; Ms Dostalova remains Chair of the HHCC, with Ms Fairweather as Deputy Chair.
We assume that the presence of Edward Wood, Chief Solicitor for the City of London at the HHMC meeting was requested to overcome any possible objection to that committee not following precedent and reflecting the views of the HHCC (which is also a statutory body).
It appears to us from all documents presented that the CoL fully costed only its preferred option. Requests for a figure of subsidy that the CoL would find sustainable were made at each consultation meeting, but no such figure was provided until the CoL revealed its recommendation at the Sports Forum on 24 February.
Throughout the consultation the CoL admitted that its data on swimmer numbers were poor and advanced this as a reason for basing its calculations on figures collected for 2017 (suggesting that 2018 and 2019 were exceptionally hot summers providing unreliable indication of usage). The swimmers’ associations presented detailed costings to the CoL which indicated that the existing charges, collected more efficiently, would provide a significant increase in income and allow those associations time to encourage the culture of payment. With hindsight, the CoL’s failure to engage in discussion of these figures suggests they never gave Option 2 serious consideration.
We fear that the new charging regime will destroy the unique ethos and culture of the bathing ponds which are world famous as far more than mere ‘swimming facilities’.
We are concerned that many local people will be excluded from visiting the ponds and swimming there by price increases of 100% (adults) and 140% (concessions), this is particularly worrying following the COVID-19 epidemic which has placed many members of our community under acute mental, physical and financial stress.
The Ladies’ Pond is a unique women-only space for swimming and relaxation that also provides a place of refuge and security for women and girls of all ages, including those who have suffered violence, abuse and coercive control; those with disabilities; low paid and unwaged carers; and those from religious faiths that require modest dress and segregation of the sexes.
We believe users of the Ladies’ Pond will be disproportionately disadvantaged by the increased charges. According to ONS figures the gender pay gap for full-time workers currently stands at 8.9% and is over 15% for women over 50 (and is ‘not declining strongly over time’). The CoL is offering some concessions and proposes a ‘hardship fund’ that we consider many pond swimmers will find demeaning and difficult or impossible to access.
CONCLUSION
The cavalier disregard of the HHCC by the HHMC sets a terrible precedent for local democracy, the future management of Hampstead Heath and the commercialisation of it under the City of London Corporation (Open Spaces) Act 2018. The deciding body is not elected by local residents and is not accountable to us, yet we have to live with the far-reaching consequences of its decisions.
We believe that the City of London has failed in its duty to the local community by wilfully disregarding the important role of the swimming ponds in the traditional fabric of life on and around the Heath and the ways in which local people use them. The ponds are part of the natural environment, local people have swum in them for centuries in the same casual way as those who live by the sea might take a daily dip while walking on the beach. This is very different to people choosing to visit a municipal swimming pool or Lido built to facilitate swimming. It could be argued that a charge of £4 might be fair for a tourist visiting the Heath for a day’s swimming and sunbathing in high summer, but for a swim that may last no more than two or three minutes – sometimes in the depths of winter – it will be prohibitive to all but the wealthiest local swimmers.
The consultation was conducted over 8 weeks and 6 days in January, February and early March 2020. While the CoL engaged with the pond swimming associations, the membership of these organisations – totalling some 1,000 plus individuals – represents only a tiny proportion of the many thousands of users who visit the swimming ponds each year, primarily in the summer months. The majority of users who do not frequent the ponds in winter will have known nothing about the consultation or the CoL proposals.
When the swimming ponds are able to re-open, the impact of the CoL decisions on the local community is likely to be exacerbated by the unprecedented mental, physical and financial stress resulting from the COVID-19 epidemic and lockdown. The KLPA has urged the CoL to reconsider the 100% price increase to provide a short-term temporary period of grace and goodwill during the recovery phase, but as at 28 June 2020 we have received no response to our suggestion.
The CoL is now developing its plans for limited re-opening of the swimming ponds, on or after 4 July 2020, with appropriate safety measures in place to protect both staff and swimmers and to ensure their safety in the water. To this end it is discussing the plans for each pond with the relevant swimming associations. We understand that the CoL plans to introduce a temporary online booking system for the post-lockdown period (defined as ‘short-term’ but with no clear end date) with no allowance for season ticket-holders (who will be offered an extension of validity or refund to cover the period during which the pond was not able to open normally) so that everyone will be expected to pay the new ‘approved charge’ of £4.00 or £2.40. We are extremely concerned that this plan will exclude those who are financially disadvantaged (at this time there is no access offered to the proposed ‘hardship fund’) and also create a ‘digital divide’ discriminating against those who do not have ready access to computers or smartphones, including many of our older swimmers.