Hampstead Heath Ponds

• THE City of London’s preferred options for charging to swim on Hampstead Heath, finally revealed on February 24, amounts to a shotgun consultation, as the Hampstead Heath Management Committee looks likely to rubber stamp the proposals next Wednesday, March 11, (D-Day over Hampstead ponds swim charges, March 6).

In short, charging will be enforced at the gates of each swimming pond by Heath Rangers, with non-payers barred. The cost of full price day tickets will go up by 100 per cent (to £4) and by 140 per cent (to £2.40) for concessionary tickets.

For the forthcoming year only, season ticket prices are frozen. A patronising hardship fund is proposed for those who cannot afford the concessionary rate.

The City is being very optimistic about its ability to implement this regime by May 2 when the summer season starts. All three ponds have porous boundaries which cannot be secured in time for the new charging regime, either with higher gates and fences or by hedge planting and dead-hedging.

Indeed some existing fences are damaged and there are areas of the Ladies’ Pond boundary too waterlogged to take any planting.

It is not clear how the back gate to the Ladies’ Pond will be maintained or secured; it currently provides rapid access for the lifeguards to first-aid incidents on the Heath.

Furthermore, Heath Rangers will be expected to enforce charging and prevent access by non-payers. How exactly are they expected to do that in the face of potential hostility, never mind the gaps in the fences?

Has their workplace safety been considered? Have full risk assessments been carried out? This should take into account – lone worker safety and cash handling at very least.

The City will be relying on the efforts of lifeguards and rangers to implement the new regime, and in doing so will presumably have negotiated with them about changes to their duties.

Failure to address any of these points correctly may lead to an avalanche of tribunal and personal injury claims from their staff.

The City has also failed to explain how it will prevent increased swimming in the non-designated ponds if access is barred at the swimming ponds.

This will inevitably lead to greater risks to the public which Heath staff will also be required to manage at some risk to their own safety. Last summer a number of serious incidents occurred at the model boating pond on very hot days.

By seeking to increase income and reduce its “subsidy” for swimming, the City is behaving counter-intuitively. Prices will be raised which will reduce the overall number of swimmers at the same time as more staff and infrastructure will be needed to enforce the new regime.

The City could instead choose to work with the swimmers’ associations to encourage payment and make payment methods easier, then review the situation in a year or two.

Instead they seem intent on punishing swimmers for non-payment caused largely by their own ineptness in collecting income.

MARY POWELL
Tottenham