• The decision by the City of London Corporation to double charges for the Hampstead Heath swimming ponds and to strictly enforce payment is disappointing for swimmers but, more importantly, the way this decision was taken must ring alarm bells for everyone who uses any of the open spaces the City manages.

The City was made custodian of the Heath and other open spaces in 1989 on the understanding that it would manage them for the benefit of the public and would take account of and usually follow recommendations from relevant interest groups.

While there have been previous disputes relating to the Heath, the City has generally shown some sensitivity to Heath users’ views. The current decision, however, is a blatant and pointless rejection of them.

The arguments around the charges for swimming are complex and many have been aired in previous letters.

But the point is that the City put out to a very hasty consultation a series of options intended to increase revenue from the ponds, but its decision-making body, the management committee, entirely ignored the result and rejected the option (known as option 2) supported by all the City’s relevant advisory bodies.

The Swimmers’ Forum and Sports Forum were unanimously in favour of option 2 while the consultative committee, which directly advises the management committee, chose option 2 by an overwhelming majority.

The rationale for overriding this substantial body of advice is weak. The City’s stated position was that it wanted swimming charges to pay an increased proportion of the ponds’ running costs but was not aiming to end up in profit.

Option 2, based on making a series of long overdue improvements to the existing light-touch charging regime, potentially met the requirement as it is expected to raise revenue without introducing major new costs.

Option 3, pushed through by the management committee, is no more guaranteed to deliver financially as increased income will be offset by significantly increased running costs while it will certainly damage the relaxed atmosphere of the ponds and is likely to exclude some existing swimmers and deter many new ones.

Why is the City now embarking on this unnecessary and highly unpopular path?

MARGARET DICKINSON
Address supplied