Langthorne Park

A resident-led alternative for Langthorne Park

We are two local residents who became so concerned about elements of Waltham Forest Council’s proposed redesign of Langthorne Park that we launched a petition, which has now received more than 600 signatures.

We then submitted a Freedom of Information request to understand how the plans had been developed and what evidence supported them. The documents below bring together what that information reveals, a review of the earlier consultation process, and an alternative vision for renewing the park.

We welcome investment and support many of the proposed improvements. Our concern is that the current plans risk changing the park’s distinctive, garden-like character through “simplifying the park” and using passive surveillance as a response to safety concerns, when many of its problems arise from years of insufficient maintenance.

Our alternative is based on protecting the park’s variety, restoring its neglected features and investing in skilled, visible maintenance, including a trial dedicated Head Gardener. These papers have now been submitted to the council ahead of the next stage of funding, design and public consultation.

The views expressed are our own. We do not claim to speak on behalf of Friends of Langthorne Park or the wider community.

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. A separate anti-social-behaviour stakeholder group did call for opened sightlines, wall removal and more CCTV, but its outputs were later presented alongside general community feedback as a single account of what residents wanted.

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 easier 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 restore the ornamental garden and ponds, manage mature planting and wildlife habitats, support volunteers and provide a regular, visible presence in the park. Regular horticultural care would also address concerns about items being concealed in vegetation without requiring wholesale clearance. When the existing maintenance contract is renewed, the council could assess whether the model should continue. Care compounds over time; a one-off redesign does not.

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