Dear Supporters 

We need 30 seconds of your time to lodge an Objection to the Royal Parks Planning Application to Camden Council for the installation of gates to Primrose Hill. 

Earlier this year the Royal Parks announced their intention to close the park at night every summer. Primrose Hill will now be closed at least 90 nights a year. They have now put in an application for Planning Application for the gates. 

We believe this application is disingenuous as it does not mention anywhere their intention to close the park 90 nights a year. It also states that there will be no impact on access to open space. This does not make sense as the application is to allow closure of a public amenity.

Please Object to Camden Council Planning here - https://planningrecords.camden.gov.uk/Northgate/PlanningExplorer/PLComments.aspx?pk=621769

Key reasons for Objection are:

1. The Planning Application is Misleading and Disingenuous

At no point in the application does the application mention the Royal Parks have announced publicly their intention to close the Park at 10pm on Friday, Saturday, and Sunday nights from March to October i.e., within British Summer Time. This amounts to 90 nights a year. 

2. Crime Statistics and Anti-Social Behaviour 

The Planning Permission Application suggests gates are necessary to manage ‘the problem of anti-social behaviour’. 

This ‘dog-whistle’ claim is problematic because (as mentioned above and according to the Primrose Hill Park manager himself) the problem does not exist to any serious extent. 

Local crime statistics don’t substantiate the claims of crime and anti-social behaviour. Nor do Camden Council’s own records, and despite the efforts of the Ward’s local councillors, they too have been unable to verify the claims made by a few repeat callers complaining about noise. 

3. The Application Contradicts The Camden Plan Open Spaces Policy 

The Planning Application sits within Camden and is impacted by policies within the Camden Local Plan (July 2017). This includes policies around the use of open space. 

Paragraph 6.8 from the Royal Park’s Planning Application suggests: 

“Rather than reducing the public’s use of the open space, it is considered that the proposed gates will ensure that it remains a safe and high-quality space, in accordance with Camden Local Plan Policy, thereby improving it as an asset for the local community and for visitors from further afield, rather than compromising it as such.” 

In point of fact, the Planning Application falls outside the conditions that must be met by the Camden Local Plan: Emptying and closing the park 3 nights a week for 7 months of the year will reduce the public’s use of an open space. 

4. The Application contradicts The London Plan Open Spaces Policy 

The Planning Application sits within London and is impacted by policies within The London Plan (July 2017). This includes policies around the use of open space. 

Paragraph 6.12 from the Planning Application states: 

“For the majority of time within any given day, the proposed gates would be open and would not restrict access. Their provision is intended to allow The Royal Parks to effectively manage the open space in order to reduce anti- social behaviour and protect the public during other events, such as extreme weather. They would therefore not be considered to significantly prejudice the public’s use of the space or de-value it in any way.” 

The Planning Application falls outside the conditions that need to be met by The London Plan. Emptying and closing the park on a weekly basis for 7 months of the year will prejudice the public’s use of an open space and devalue it. This application does not comply. 

5. Lack of Community Engagement by The Royal Parks 

The Planning Application states that there has been a ‘full and extensive process of public engagement in order to gather the views of local residents and park visitors.’  This is simply not true. The Royal Parks have not, as should be required for the change in use of a public resource of this magnitude, consulted with local stakeholders or the community adequately. 

6. The ‘Engagement Survey’ 

The Planning Application relies of the evidence of the Royal Park’s ‘Engagement Survey.’ This was fundamentally biased, both in its failure to ensure a wide and fairly-weighted sample, but also in its framing of key questions. This was in no manner an adequate Public Consultation for such a major decision. 

Discrimination: this survey failed to engage the most underprivileged and under resourced segments of our local population. The ‘Engagement Survey’ on which this application relies was not completed by them. An online study devoid of demographic quotas or panel recruitment excludes all harder to reach park users. Canvassing on the hill took place during daylight hours, thereby excluding those (night time users) set to be most directly affected by the closures. 

By their own admission, The Royal Parks have relied on a survey that does not represent the local community. 

The demographic most affected by the locking of the park are young people, often living in flats, who rely on use of an open space for health and mental health, as evidenced by the number of complaints received from local Councillors about the Royal Park’s gating policy. Though the Royal Parks state the survey accurately reflects the views of the local neighborhood, 62% of the survey respondents were homeowners, and ~76% of the respondents were white. In contrast, according to the 2021 census data, only ~30% of Camden residents are homeowners and only ~60% are white. 

7. Impact of Closure on Other Areas of Camden 

Gating and closure of Primrose Hill during the ‘temporary circuit breaker’ has shown that the impact on other areas of Camden as people are displaced, en masse, from a large, open space into the side streets and other areas. 

Local Councillors are noting complaints made from other nearby open spaces, such as the bridge over the railway line, and in Swiss Cottage, where people leaving the park later congregate. The park’s closure impacts all Camden. 

8. Long Term Impact on Camden Policing and Safety in The Park

Park gating and closure will require the consistent and wasteful use of police resource. As Andrew Scattergood, CEO of the Royal Parks admitted: 

“The police have been absolutely fantastic in their support because in reality, I don’t think two gate lockets would be able to clear the park of a thousand people, while the police have been able to do that for us.” 

An unpoliced, closed park will lead to more police call outs about people who have climbed the gates. The fastest growing crime statistic in the area is people in the closed park. In demonstration at the perceived unfairness of locking people out of a public resource, the gates have constantly been destroyed. These acts of targeted protest are characterised by the Royal Parks as simple vandalism. This is a gross error of judgment.

There will be an ongoing impact on local Camden policing resource closing and clearing the park and keeping people out of the open space. This is not addressed in the Planning Application.

9. Discrimination and Privatisation 

Gating and closing the park will lead to unfair access for the residents of Elsworthy Road (and others) who have private gates in their back gardens that lead directly into the park. Gating the park has in effect privatised a public resource. Public access is restricted to some whilst these wealthy residents can access the park freely. The people living on the perimeter who are the persistent callers the police talk about, want to turn a public park into their private garden. They must be allowed to alienate all other residents of Camden purely for their personal convenience and privilege. 

For further information, crime statistics or evidence please email us at:

Keepthehillopen@gmail.com