The Labour Government is making much of its ‘mission’ to reduce violence against women and girls. It also champions neighbourhood policing. In fact, who would not? Hence much said and done to patrol public spaces such as high streets, of interest to private security both because their properties are nearby, or guarding contractors can bid for such niche work. Relatively little by comparison is said about securing parks, Mark Rowe writes.
Parks are where serious crimes happen, such as robbery at knifepoint and murder; such as of Sophie Lancaster in Lancashire in 2007. That is not meant to stigmatise parks or to make them sound more dangerous that they actually are; just as in a car park, or any high street in any town, most people go about their business in their local park without conflict. Hence, despite the Forbury Gardens, Reading terror attack of June 2020, parks were not (though earlier suggested to be included) part of the ‘premises’ covered by the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Act 2025, Martyn’s Law for short.
The basic criminological theory of the ‘crime triangle’ tells you that crime can be explained by a motivated offender, a suitable target, and the absence of a ‘capable guardian’. Given that the days of plentiful municipal gardeners in parks have long gone, where does that leave those who do walk or sit in parks. While the abduction of Sarah Everard in 2021 did not occur in a park, that tributes and candles to her were laid on Clapham Common, which spoke of how the case resonated with women as park users. As a report by the University of Leeds last autumn pointed out, women and girls are significantly more likely than men to feel unsafe in parks. Hence the publishing of guidance for the design and management of parks, Safer Parks: Improving Access for Women and Girls by the Safer Parks Consortium; and ‘Stand Up Against Street Harassment’ training by the charity Suzy Lamplugh Trust (itself named after a 1980s missing London estate agent presumed murdered), tailored for parks. The report Safer Parks made the point that women and girls experience parks differently – for example, by sitting at a bench on their own, they may get men asking for their phone number that leaves the woman uncomfortable. Briefly, the training offered the 5Ds (Distract, Delegate, Document, Delay, and Direct), participants work in small groups to consider how a bystander could step in, in scenarios – while keeping themselves safe (‘bystander intervention’ in cases of public harassment on buses and other mass transport is also the subject of Transport for London campaigning). Among the report’s recommendations was that park contract staff ought to complete bystander training; which park owners, typically councils, ought to include in procurement.
London example
In spring 2025, the Metropolitan Police announced that the Royal Parks Operational Command Unit (OCU), covering the 11 Royal Parks of London, ‘would be absorbed into Neighbourhood Wards’, one of numerous ‘tough choices’ due to a ‘funding gap’. The Parks would become part of the standard patrol routes for Ward teams ‘to ensure a visible policing presence remains’, the Met said. The Met stressed that it was making neighbourhood policing its priority; Royal Parks premises would be used by neighbourhood teams to parade out of, ‘to provide a visible policing presence’. Critics pointed out that neighbourhood teams had demands already, and specialist knowledge of parks would be lost.
Borough example
In east London, the borough of Havering chief executive Andrew Blake-Herbert in January 2026 reported to councillors about the ‘crime and anti-social behaviour (ASB) landscape in Havering’s parks’, in particular Raphael Park in Romford. While by night, the park might see fishing, rough sleeping and wildlife crime (poaching), most reports of crime and nuisance are by day – whether of drug paraphernalia, loud motorcycling, illegal camping, dog fouling or missing persons. As elsewhere, crime and nuisance are also seasonal, ‘with more ASB in summer due to good weather, longer days and higher footfall’, the report added. As of December 2025, the two Parks Police (Havering council employees) are ‘being supported by three UK Shared Prosperity Fund posts until March 2026.
Higher risk
According to a survey of the borough’s youth, more feel unsafe or as the report put it, perceived risk is higher on streets and in transport hubs, especially Romford town centre; as reflected in ‘actual crime stats’. Hence the council directs its community safety resources such as Marshals, and CCTV, to the town centre. The council locked its parks at or around dusk and reopened them each morning – until autumn 2022, when Havering cut the work to save £150,000. Between June 2023 and June 2024, Havering trialled an Enforcement Pilot with the contractor National Enforcement Solutions (NES) ‘which saw increased littering enforcement in Parks and Town Centres and also brought back the parks locking service’. That trial ended however, ‘because NES struggled to recruit and retain staff which resulted in an ongoing performance issue’; in plainer English, half of the Parks were not regularly locked. While parks in Havering have not been locked since June 2024, the report argues that ‘very little evidence’ suggests not locking is ‘driving or increasing’ any crime type. In any event, the council does not propose to bring back locking.
PSPOs
Public space protection orders (PSPOs) have been a tool for councils for a dozen years to address low-level crime and nuisance such as littering, dog fouling and street drinking in specific settings. A tendency has been for councils to expand the areas covered by a PSPO, including borough-wide; which does bring up the question of how to enforce any prohibition. Town centre PSPOs may include a park, such as Chesterfield’s covers Queen’s Park; Chesterfield Borough Council has gone out to consultation on a proposal to roughly double a PSPO area beyond the town centre.
Photo by Mark Rowe; chained park bench, Cheltenham.
