Consultation on future access to the Hampstead Heath Bathing Ponds - Closes 25 November 2025

[IwantToRetire]

The City of London Corporation has launched a public consultation to help inform future access arrangements at Hampstead Heath’s Bathing Ponds.

The consultation invites feedback from pond users, the local community, and stakeholders on how the Kenwood Ladies’, and Highgate Men’s ponds should operate in the future.

The consultation is open until 12:00 on Tuesday 25 November 2025.

https://hampstead-heath-bathing-ponds.commonplace.is/

Opened today and I found out via an Irish newspaper!

I know there is an existing thread about legal challenge but thought it good to have the news of the consultation being open as a thread title.

Have now found the official press release:

Currently, the Men’s Pond admits biological men and trans men, and the Ladies’ Pond admits biological women and trans women, with the protected characteristics of gender reassignment under the Equality Act 2010.

These arrangements have been in place for many years, consistent with the City Corporation’s Gender Identity Policy – adopted in 2019 following a public consultation – and previous versions of the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s (EHRC) Statutory Code of Practice.

Both the City Corporation’s Gender Identity Policy and past EHRC guidance have since been withdrawn following the UK Supreme Court judgement in For Women Scotland (April 2025) on the meaning of “sex” in the Equality Act 2010.

Like many organisations, the City Corporation – which manages Hampstead Heath as a registered charity – is now reviewing its access rules to ensure they remain fair, lawful and respectful, in light of the recent Supreme Court ruling and evolving EHRC guidance.

The consultation will support that review and ask for views on whether the Ladies’ Pond and the Men’s Pond should continue to operate as trans-inclusive or exclusively single-sex spaces, or as mixed-sex spaces. The City Corporation is also asking for feedback on whether communal toilets and changing rooms should be trans-inclusive, and whether there should be specific times reserved for biological single-sex use. [Please see notes to editors for the full list of options being put forward for consideration].

The findings will not determine the future policy on their own but will help inform decisions made by Members of the City Corporation’s committees, alongside several other key factors, including legal duties, equality impacts, safeguarding, and practical enforcement considerations.

The current admission rules will remain in place until the consultation concludes and decisions regarding future access have been finalised by the relevant City Corporation committees.

Extract only https://news.cityoflondon.gov.uk/city-of-london-corporation-launches-public-consultation-on-hampstead-heath-bathing-ponds/

That’s an interesting press release - I was under the impression that the men’s pond specifically didn’t admit trans men (ie trans identifying women). Can anyone confirm?

Trans-inclusive. Nice use of specious language there.

Why do they think they need to have a consultation about whether to obey the law or not?

Sacred caste innit? Special rules reserved for those believing they're exempt from the laws of the land, the social contract and the requirement to respect the rights of others.

Well that is jolly (bloody) funny really. Sev Matters have already issued proceedings against them, so presumably this is a line of defence.

The first line of defence was that the EQA did not apply as they were not providing single sex services ??? Or something like that.

what a bunch of idiots, who the hell is giving them legal advice?

I suspect, given what has happened in the past, that they will get (or manage to discredet enough responses that dont fit) an overwhelming support for trans inclusion.

And then somehow argue that they are providing a service that the public wants.

To then set a precedent that when a popular vote demands it, organisation can be exempt from the Supreme Court ruling.

You may think I am joking.

But I am not. There has been so much resistance and the activists who are embedded in places like this Corporation, will use this position to continue to undermine women's rights.

@IwantToRetire I understand your pessimism but you are simply incorrect.

A court cannot and would not rule that a positive public consultation, will override the rule of law. Only Parliament can change the law by virtue of legislation.

so your suggestion that this could happen is silly.

It doesn't matter if people think you should break the law, you'd still be breaking the law.

Did I say that?

Seriously please re-read.

But thanks for highlighting it, OP. Hopefully London Mumsnetters will respond and not have their input discounted for spurious reasons this time.

It doesn't matter how many trans identifying men and handmaidens write in saying they support trans inclusion, or how many bigoted women's responses they put in the bin.

It's not Strictly Come Dancing, the public doesn't get to vote.

They just have to obey the law. It's that simple.

@IwantToRetire “ to then set a precedent that when a popular vote demands it ,organisation can be exempt from the Supreme Court ruling”

i do not no how else i can interpret that statement.

I don't see the point of participation in a consultation as the last one was more bent than spaghetti junction. The questions will be spun and biased to get the predetermined male dominance answers, it will be brigaded by TRAs who will not have to find it advertised in an Irish newspaper hidden in an unused toilet behind a sign saying 'beward of the leopard', and all the unwanted answers that say anything terrible such as 'women have access needs and rights too' will be binned.

The court case will take place in reality as opposed to Lala Land, this is probably some attempt to demonstrate how there's no women actually wanting rights in this survey they carefully fiddled.

Because whether you like it or not, in the UK many laws are not upheld, and I think without saying this is the group that will do it, if it becomes custom and practice not to implement this law, many willl not do it.

It isn't as though the public as a whole care enough to do anything.

On FWR we might be aware and highlight some instances, but in terms of daily life most people will be influenced by the media, and just accept that TW are allowed in to spaces defined as women.

There will need to be huge upsurge in active enforcement or demand for enforcement by the public for consistent implementation across the UK (excluding NI?).

I suspect of FWR is still going in 20 years and any of us are still around to read it, this will have just faded into a lost memory of a campaign that wont resonate any more.

Just look at the thread on hostels. Are they bothered by the new ruling?

Or Parliament could ammend the EA to say, in a reverse of how single sex exemptions are intended, that if proven to be user preference, a service can be provided to both an actual woman and a legal woman. Ditto men.

I live very locally and I haven’t seen anything about this. I will be responding of course. How they can say that trans men can go in the men’s pond I do not know. It’s just lies

I’ve done the consultation. Most of the questions are multiple choices and the survey is run be an independent company so I think the results could be useful. Like any survey, it is biased by who fills it in, but if you live in the area then it is worth completing.

"Because whether you like it or not, in the UK many laws are not upheld"

I'm a man and not trans so not allowed in the ladies pool.

Since some men are that is discrimination against me and I could sue.

Then my neighbour could and his neighbour and so on.

Meanwhile every woman in the country could sue because not allowed in the men's pool

Their only escape would probably be to make them all open to all, but the men using the men's pool might have something to say about that. I'm amazed they have allowed transmen in.

No simple amendment will fix it because allowing members to choose would wreck the equality act and we'd be back to "but our members are fine with white men, white women, but not black people"

I do not share your pessimism and in this paticular case it is going to be in front of the high court and the Corporation will lose.It’s your thread @IwantToRetire so i will go no further,

thank you for your extensive efforts to keep us all informed it is much appreciated.

Women claiming to be men have been thrown out of the men's pond.

And since when was 2019 "many years" ago? I've got spices in my cupboard older than that.

I’ve submitted my response.

The consultation suggests 6 or 7 different ways of making all the ponds ‘trans inclusive’ & mixed sex, the final one being to make them openly mixed sex & noting that they don’t like that idea.

As for trans inclusive, making the women’s & men’s ponds single sex would give trans people the option of their own sex pond or the mixed one.

Hopefully this link works:
https://x.com/cityoflondon/status/1973063510549475596?s=46&t=MMiDcyvYeq7lcAKloXsKVg

"Reviewing their access rules to ensure they remain fair, lawful and respectful"

Erm, "remain"??

Also did the survey. As pp said, so many options to desperately avoid following the law and being women-inclusive.

TWATS

I've filled it in