The decision comes amid an ongoing legal case launched by Sex Matters into the ponds’ access arrangements
Hampstead Heath’s chiefs have agreed to retain the existing trans-inclusive policies at the North London attraction’s Men’s and Ladies’ ponds.
City of London Corporation members voted to continue allowing trans men and trans women access to the ponds with which they identify alongside more than £1 million for upgrades to all three sites, with the Heath also hosting a mixed facility.
A legal case launched by charity and advocacy group Sex Matters into the Corporation’s policy is ongoing, with a hearing expected later this year.
Members at today’s (June 4) Policy and Resources Committee rose to support retaining the existing arrangements as well as to raise concerns about the proposal.
Common Councillor Steve Goodman argued access to the ponds should be dictated by biological sex, and that a decision should be deferred until updated Government guidance is published.
The meeting was moved into private session due to legal queries which it was deemed may impact the case with Sex Matters.
The Local Democracy Reporting Service (LDRS) has however been told that an agreement was reached by a large majority for the existing arrangements to be maintained.
The Corporation’s policy of allowing trans men to access the Men’s Pond and trans women the Ladies’ Pond has been in place since at least 2017, at which point it was consistent with the previous interpretation of the Equality Act.
Following the Supreme Court judgement in 2024 that ‘sex’ under equalities law refers to biological rather than certified sex, members agreed to review the policy. A consultation run last year indicated overwhelming support for maintaining the existing arrangements, though the number of respondents and results have been queried by Sex Matters.
Corporation officers had recommended the ponds remain trans-inclusive, writing no substantiated incidents had been reported for at least a decade and that “it is difficult to see how a policy of strict segregation on the basis of biological sex could be justified”.
The paper has progressed through two prior committees before coming to Policy and Resources this afternoon for a final decision.
Members were also provided with additional documentation, including the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s (EHRC) draft Statutory Code of Practice on Services, Public Functions and Associations.
Committee Chair, Deputy Chris Hayward, told members that staff working across the Corporation’s open spaces “continue to act with professionalism under what has been significant pressure created by the wider public debate”.
He added it is an “emotive issue” and that he is “aware of the strength of feeling on both sides”.
Deputy Ann Holmes was the first to ask whether, given new EHRC guidance is expected imminently, the decision should be deferred to consider the updates.
“What’s the imperative for doing it now if we may in a month’s time need to come back and do it again in the light of new legislation?”
Common Councillor Brendan Barns and Common Councillor Jason Groves both praised the work done by staff and backed the recommendation.
Cllr Groves said: “What the committee has considered and what we have come up with is something that is very sensible and pragmatic and actually deliverable on the ground. It’s something that takes into account what the reality is. It’s common sense.”
The recommendation as developed was also backed by Deputy Caroline Haines, who said the advice consistently received is that if the Corporation continues with the provision it has, it is best protected by law.
She added it “is really only the reasonable option, that it protects our legal integrity, it supports the majority of the public voice, it better protects our staff on the ground, and it upholds the reputation of the Corporation”.
Cllr Goodman argued the ponds’ access policy should be based on biological sex and noted the case law as handed down in the Supreme Court judgement. He drew parallels with the recent issue of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor and the Freedom he inherited from his father.
Cllr Goodman said members had been told it could not be removed due to case law, and asked why this was not the same advice issued in relation to the ponds.
He also raised concerns about the approach to who can access which pond, telling members: “I think we are sometimes confused about, are we talking about somebody just deciding they want to be a woman for a day…all through to someone who’s got a Gender Reassignment [sic] Certificate”.
Sheriff and Deputy Keith Bottomley raised the fact the Men’s and Ladies’ ponds are the only two gender segregated such sites in the UK, and asked: “Is it not time, in the 21st century, to look at how we move to full inclusivity?”
This point was responded to by Cllr Groves, who noted that respondents to the consultation made clear the wish to keep the ponds split by gender, plus the mixed.
The meeting went into private upon the advice of the City Solicitor Michael Cogher at which point the LDRS was asked to leave the room.
We have since been told that the decision was made to go with maintaining the current arrangements, with an amendment to the policy enabling trans men to access the Highgate Men’s Pond and trans women the Kenwood Ladies’.
Maya Forstater, Chief Executive of Sex Matters, previously said the Corporation’s proposed policy “is simply unlawful” and that it is operating “as if Hampstead Heath is an enclave that is outside of the law”.
Get the top stories from across London directly to your inbox. Sign up for MyLondon’s The 12 HERE to get the biggest stories every day
