Langthorne Park

A resident-led alternative for Langthorne Park

The Friends of Langthorne Park have formally adopted an alternative vision for the park’s regeneration, developed in response to concerns about Waltham Forest Council’s proposed redesign.

The campaign began when two local residents launched a petition, which has now attracted more than 900 signatures. A subsequent Freedom of Information request sought to establish how the Council’s plans had been developed and what evidence supported them.

The documents below bring together the findings of that research, a review of the earlier consultation process and proposals for an alternative approach, now formally endorsed by Friends of Langthorne Park.

We welcome investment in the park and support many of the proposed improvements. However, we are concerned that the Council’s emphasis on “simplifying the park” and using passive surveillance as a response to safety concerns risks fundamentally changing its distinctive, garden-like character, without addressing the underlying problems of neglect and insufficient maintenance.

Our alternative approach prioritises repair, restoration and long-term stewardship. It seeks to protect the park’s variety and character, restore neglected features and invest in skilled, visible maintenance, including exploring how we might restore the role of a dedicated Head Gardener.

These proposals now form the basis of the Friends of Langthorne Park’s regeneration campaign and our ongoing engagement with the Council. We are calling for meaningful community consultation before any further major changes are made, and for residents and the Friends to play an active role in shaping the park’s future.

The Campaign at a Glance

1. What we love about Langthorne Park

Langthorne Park doesn't feel like a park built in the last few decades. Its winding paths, mature planting, ponds, decorative railings and formal ornamental garden hark back to the grand tradition of Victorian public parks, which aimed to give working people access to the landscaped gardens of the aristocracy. Its sequence of distinct “garden rooms” means the whole park is never visible at once: it reveals itself gradually as you move through it, making a small site feel far larger than it really is. It offers genuine variety - quiet corners, active spaces, formal planting and wildlife habitat - suited to different people and different moods. Above all, it is a green oasis that feels separate from the surrounding streets.

2. What’s at risk

The council's latest published design report sets out four core design principles, two of which raise serious concerns: "simplifying the park", and using open views and passive surveillance to respond to safety concerns. In practice, these principles translate into clearing mature shrubs, removing decorative railings and walls, altering pergolas, opening views through the park and from surrounding streets, and replacing parts of the formal ornamental garden with lawns, meadow and children's play areas. Together, these changes risk destroying everything we love about the park. The council has since said it will not create long sightlines, but the published design framework has not yet been revised, and it still intends to open up views to surrounding streets. Mature planting, once removed, cannot be quickly recreated.

3. What our research found

We went back through the council’s own consultation records and found that this design direction did not emerge from the main public engagement. It was already set out in the July 2024 feasibility report, before most consultation took place. Of the 57 responses collected at the two earliest festival events, not one resident asked for the park to be simplified or opened up, or for railings and walls to be removed. These ideas mostly seem to have emerged from a separate anti-social-behaviour stakeholder group which called for opened sightlines, wall removal and more CCTV, rather than from residents themselves.

The later adult survey received only 69 responses. Around 69% of respondents were women, roughly two-thirds were white and about one-third were aged 35-44, although the consultation area is majority non-white and much more evenly balanced by sex and age. Questions also described existing features using loaded terms such as “overgrown” and “cluttered”, while failing to explain clearly what might be lost if its plans were enacted. The council did not assess whether the sample was representative, did not record whether respondents were regular park users and can not demonstrate how any of the feedback actually changed the designs they proposed.

4. An alternative plan

We think the underlying problem is neglect, not design. Before simplifying the landscape to make it cheaper to maintain, the council should assess the option of restoring the capacity to care for it properly. We propose a dedicated Head Gardener, potentially supported initially through the Mayor’s Green Roots Fund, working alongside the existing maintenance contract during a defined restoration phase.

The role would help restore the ornamental garden and ponds, manage mature planting and wildlife habitats, support volunteers and provide a regular, visible presence in the park. Regular presence and horticultural care would also address concerns about anti-social behaviour and items being concealed in vegetation, without requiring wholesale plant clearance. If the project is a success, when the existing outsourced maintenance contract is renewed, the council could bring it back inhouse to employ a head gardener on a long term basis. Care compounds over time; a one-off redesign does not.

The park does not need to be simplified. It needs to be cared for.