Forum Topic

Appropriation of Brent Lea Rec

LBH have given notice that they intend to appropriate Brent Lea rec overriding covenants that already exist. This recreation ground was given for the sole purpose of just that, recreation. This is tantamount to theft.The notice is in the Chronicle and we have until 31st July to write to Mr Sonny McCann, Regeneration, Economic Development and Environment Directorate, Hounslow Council, Civic Centre, Lampton Rd, Hounslow, TW3 4DN.If they appropriate the land then they can sell it to Floreat School for £60,000 and give them a 125 year lease. If the school fails, then  Floreat can sell on the land to anyone for anything!!

Joanna Russell ● 3670d60 Comments

I'm sorry if anything I have said comes across as rude or aggressive, but I don't think that is the case.Councillor Curran is leader of a big London borough, presiding over a multi-million pound budget.  On top of that he holds down a day job. I would be astounded if he writes all his own quotes and press releases.  There were plenty who didn't during the administration of which you and I were a part.

Phil Andrews ● 3649d

Apologies "Andy" for posting in haste. Why do you have to be so rude and aggressive in your posting? What do you think that it achieves?

Cllr Sam Hearn ● 3649d

Either he is making fun of us, or the officers who write his material are making fun of him.

Phil Andrews ● 3649d

As I have said previously councillors should be sensitive to local issues, clearly lost on the Dear Leader who also used his blurb in the last 'Hounslow Matters' to bang on about how Hounslow was particularly blessed with green open spaces! Go figure!

Vanessa Smith ● 3649d

Councillor Steve Curran, Leader of Hounslow Council said: “It’s very gratifying that the regeneration of Brentford has received recognition and that our efforts to help make our corner of London a greener more pleasant place to live and work are not going unnoticed.”Could he have possibly picked a worse time to talk about making the area greener?

Ian Fillingham ● 3649d

I don't know this Andy but until he responds to you, why don't you just carrying on managing expectations in your Chiswick protectorate and stop embarrassing yourself by trying to engage with Hounslow politicians who always run rings around you?

Phil Andrews ● 3649d

.... and the result is that the school will not be built on Brent Lea. If you have a point to make about the suitability or otherwise of the Acton Lodge site then feel free to share it with us Andy.

Cllr Sam Hearn ● 3649d

We Came, We Saw, They Fobbed Us Off.

Phil Andrews ● 3649d

At both the Planning Meeting and the Call In meeting it was said that the Acton Lodge premises were "the wrong shape" for a school i.e. too long and narrow. It was not clear why it could not have served as a temporary location for the school. Perhaps others have a better recollection of what was said?

Cllr Sam Hearn ● 3649d

Also after reading Theo's posting it's obvious Acton Lodge, in the eyes of Curran et al, is a none stater. We would love to know why. Is it money pure and simple.

Neil Chippendale ● 3649d

Nice to see you over here Theo, some more interaction between our rulers and the lowly who use this resource would not go amiss.  I can understand why those in office are reluctant to engage in debate but it comes across and aloofness and arrogance rather than caution.I liked the Baldrick analogy and I take your point, although the question of discouraging new posters does not arise in this instance.  Remember I am an old hand on these forums and I can smell a sock puppet from two hundred paces - when they arrive mob-handed the services of Hercule Poirot are scarcely needed.I think most of us see you as one of the good guys, although I confess to some irritation at your habit of loyally defending colleagues whom you and I both know do not deserve to be defended.  Acton Lodge is not a subject of mere speculation - it was raised by residents as a viable alternative site and some dismissive excuse was mumbled for it not having been considered.  At the time I speculated in response that the site had probably been earmarked for private development and was chastised for doing so by one of your W4 Tory vassals who accused me of being a conspiracy theorist.  Then...guess what?For all the heart-tugging about the poor children who need a school the fact is that the administration pulled a fast one on the local people.  It had a site, but rather than use it it set it aside for development and then attempted to appropriate Open Land for its educational needs, knowing full well that selling Brent Lea Rec for private housing would be a non-starter.  Thanks to the vigilance and persistence of locals this little stunt was rumbled, and so the problem has been shifted to the other end of Brentford where apparently any kind of pre-consultation with residents has once again been eschewed.I feel for you in your role as champion of community engagement under this administration.  It must be akin to being Minister of Information in North Korea or Admiral of the Fleet in the Swiss Navy.Please don't be a stranger Theo, it is always useful for us on this forum to be given a perspective from Planet Lampton even if it will inevitably be skewed.  And please also desist where you can from defending the indefensible - let those who hold us in such obvious contempt speak for themselves, or not as the case would appear to be.

Phil Andrews ● 3649d

Whilst I would tend to agree with your comments regarding the council having a dirty tricks department, I certainly do believe that some of your colleagues are a completely different matter. Their behaviour towards local residents is at times crass to say the least, they have also shown themselves to be deceitful and downright dishonest, so I would say your biggest problem - and theirs - is trust. And as you will be aware it's not just the regrettable Floreat saga, some of them haven't a clue what their role is, they see their wards as some sort of private fiefdom to do just as they like without regard to anyone else, and when all else fails they go into hiding and become un-contactable.You as an individual must have wept when you've seen some of the more blatant episodes of totally ignoring local opinion in your role heading up 'citizen engagement'. It's not enough to have screeds of policy documents, these have to be living things that actually mean something and grow and actually produce consensual outcomes whatever the issue may be. Rocking up to public meetings and talking down to people as if they collectively just came down with the last shower is certainly not the way to do it, neither is throwing all your toys out of the pram which the Leader did at that public meeting! Talking to people as early as possible on any issue which is likely to affect them or the area they live in is key, and expanding and improving on the dialogue and being open and transparent has to be a better way than lumbering yourself and officers with an unholy mess like Brent Lea became, and you only had yourselves to blame I'm afraid. Will your colleagues be open to learning from this experience? Or will the 'we know what's best for you' mentality prevail?

Vanessa Smith ● 3649d

The problem is Council Officers and the school businesses themselves have been rather dismissive and uberpernickety about some locations.Nor has there been any creative input taken seriously.Some free schools have been advised by people who are viewing the sale profit on sites should the school close. There are a lot of questions that this government should be asking about the financial structure of Free Schools and the intentions of some involved.As a parent, I would be alarmed about the lack of integrity, honesty and honour that I would be placing my children into the care of.The best state schools do at least have a good ethos in this area and it is as important of being able to divide 9 by 3 and spell Business.The easy option to use public space or use sensitive areas is being taken. It's less work and bother...apart from treading all over long term residents and those who actually want to live here and lay down proper roots.Along the length of Brentford from Syon to Kew, runs a railway line.  This line is now a modern electrified line with quiet trains, low running speeds and quite safe.  It is not like 40 years ago with asbestos brakes, diesel fumes and noise. All those have been eliminated or reduced to lower levels than found in an average street.But the remains of the railways past is still there. There are disused sidings, relay stations, watering loops and small goods yards . Some already utilised but several spaces intact albeit overgrown.They  are sites on  ground that was cleared and stabilised when the railways were built.  A school can be built ironically like a corridor train, with classrooms to one side, and good design can make a lot of a long narrow space.There are sites from Lionel Road to GWQ and others where a small school as big as St Paul's could be accommodated, as could small business units.The rail infrastructure is still state owned and their is land that can be leased.Councils can lobby MPs and Government departments. But all too often they don't or won't, usually down to petty politics. But all avenues that do not damage local space and quality of life have to be explored more openly and creatively.

Raymond Havelock ● 3649d

You are absolutely right Phil of course it isn't over: there is still a school looking for a long term site and a government that could throw up any number of others at almost anytime.  But that's no reason to scare off every new person who posts a divergent view or start worrying about a council dirty tricks department - heck you know as well as I do, if they had one it would be run by Baldrick not Machiavelli.But this is a good time to take stock: Floreat/EFA have switched their attentions to Trico House, the appropriation of Brent Lea will not be pursued, and with a fair wind Commerce Road can be brought into play before Floreat outgrow their new home.  Meanwhile the Council's Scrutiny Committee have an opportunity to rake through the coals and see if they could have come up with a better site - and hopefully they will put an end to speculation about Acton lodge, St George's and every other alternative that has been suggested.  One way or another they will usefully underline the fact that we can all be fallible.

Theo Dennison ● 3649d

Whoever you are they haven't been deprived of a school place, alternative sites are available but Council seem determined to ignore the obvious choice for the school. If you are so concerned contact the leader of LBH, if you know who that is and ask him about Acton Lodge.

Neil Chippendale ● 3649d

If we ignore them they'll go away. As subtle as sledgehammers!!

Joanna Russell ● 3650d

This is why I think Brent Lea is not yet safe and that we need to keep our eyes on the ball here.  Lots of similarly-worded comments from people who have previously never posted on this forum and who, I am reliably advised, are not actually recorded as living in the area.  This is a time-honoured technique of the legendary LBH dirty tricks department.

Phil Andrews ● 3650d

Seems to be a pattern emerging.  Several theories spring to mind...

Katherine Kaufman ● 3650d

There could be a poster from Tunbridge Wells in Kent, if it's the same person of course

Bernard Allen ● 3650d

Do we have another newcomer from Kent?

Joanna Russell ● 3650d

Congratulations on depriving so many children of a school place – well done everyone.

Mohamed Hsino ● 3650d

I was very pleased to hear yesterday that Hounslow Council have decided NOT to proceed with their Appropriation procedures to breach the Trust established in 1961 that the land be maintained forever as Public Open Space.When the Council promised to maintain the designated land as a Public Open Space in 1961, at that time there was no way that the Council could escape its responsibilities and dispose of the land for other uses.  During the time of Mrs Thatcher in the 1980s, the law was changed so that a Statutory Trust could be set aside for proper planning purposes (but not merely for profit).The abuse of open land can be seriously detrimental as has occured in "Upton Court Park" in Slough where the Labour Council there seemed to encourage the loss of Green Belt land in "revenge" for some historic development in another part of the Borough carried out by a previous administration. Much of the Park Entrance has been handed over to developers who are building on an otherwise landlocked area of farmland with the result that 1,000 vehicles will now be using what was a quiet tree-lined pedestrian access with only occasional traffic to an owl sanctuary and sports club grounds.In some instances where there are restrictive covenants, landowners injuriously affected are able to claim Compensation, but most people would prefer to keep the status quo.Once a Council has breached a Trust or Land Covenant, then a precedent has been established and sooner or later once having tasted blood, they will be back for more.Victor Mishiku  11/8/15.

Victor Mishiku ● 3650d

Given that most parents whinnied and spluttered at the meeting when Acton Lodge was mentioned  " We're not sending our children to Acton" is most telling.These new residents clearly don't know the area they have moved to, or respect it. Some clearly believed they were smarter than everyone else and above the local Brentford populus. It's awful hearing younger Mums in particular decrying Brentford as a place "We had to move to because we couldn't afford Chiswick/ Putney/Ealing." Most did not do their homework in the way many parents do.  Proper family housing in Brentford is and has long been woefully inadequate and so is the infrastructure to support it.We knew that when we returned here a few years ago. So we planned accordingly. Only when all worked out did we take the decision to return to Brentford.But building schools or anything else on public open space, be it parks allotments, orchards or whatever in an already overdense area is wreckless and selfish.What happens when all these baby boom children hit 12?  Where will the secondary schools be built?  On other parks?  There are so many brownfield sites and newish adaptable buildings in the vicinity that using any public open space should not even be a consideration.Children are only at school for a short part of life. They also need open space and all hopefully will become adults and seniors. All ages need open space for something or other. It is part of what just about maintains some degree of quality of life as well as an environmental balance. As you get older it becomes as important as a good education and good health.The problem is poor planning and policy and lack of pressure and creativity by the authorities.  The fact is it is like getting a Pint into a Half pint glass.  The place is full and destroying what little quality of life and natural environs exist is what we want for the next generation?  To quote a school favourite. " Could do Better".  This council has to stop trading sites in secret trysts with developers and either exert compulsory purchase on a few sites and the government needs to reevaluate whether selling taxpayer owned and funded properties like police stations and NHS sites would be better held in reserve for changes in key infrastructure.

Raymond Havelock ● 3653d

For many people Acton Lodge's old site was the sensible option, all utility services already there and it had been used as a centre for people with learning difficulties for years. But it seems the council want things all ways, they want to flog that site and nick a chunk of park that is not theirs to take. You simply cannot justify that because there is a need for primary school places, let's not forget in a few years those pressures will transfer to secondary schools. Yes, education is vitally important but so is quality of life for those children, and others living locally. Osterley is in the sights of another free school so where will this all stop?

Vanessa Smith ● 3653d

Yes, you can excercise free speech, but so can we. A number of us believed that 14% of stolen Metropolitan Land was was to much let alone 30%. We also believe that temporary was never an option.If you are so in favour just say to Council, how about giving the school Acton Lodge.

Neil Chippendale ● 3653d

You wrote:No you obviously DON'T understand - councillors changed their minds only after massive public objections and a brilliant campaign by local residents to building on Brent Lea.My reply:The petition that was organised misrepresented the proposed development - this applies equally to the flyers posted on the high street. If I hadn't taken the time to read up on the development I would have signed the petition - I wouldn't want to lose a large area of local recreational space.You wrote:I'm not sure if you are being deliberately provocative or daft, this is Metropolitan Open Land and was given to the people of Brentford for their leisure and enjoyment. Either we take a stand on this type of issue or we will not have any green spaces left. You may wish to live in that sort of world, many of us do not.My reply:I'm neither, I'm just exercising my right to free speech in a public forum. Obviously like the rest of Brentford I want access to green space - however the proposed development would not have compromised or prejudiced our access. The temporary school building would have occupied only 14% of the site while the permanent one only 30% - this means we would still have access to 70% of the site. Secondly as you maybe aware the site is immediately adjacent to Syon Park, a large green space which permits public access - for some reason this appears to have been ignored by councillors. With regard to the gifting of the site to the people of Brentford - the Duke of Northumberland did so at a time when local children were not disadvantaged by a lack of school places, this change in circumstances should not have been ignored.You wrote:And further we do not take very kindly to councillors riding roughshod over local people and failing to consult with them on such proposals, this is becoming a very nasty habit and they need to understand that they are there to represent us, this borough is not their personal fiefdom to do as they like.My reply:I think this is an example of councillors riding roughshod over of people - it's just that they are doing so with regard to young families whose children require school places.

Germaine Campbell ● 3653d

Councillor Hearn do you support the opening of the school on its alternate site at Trico House?

Mohamed Hsino ● 3654d

No you obviously DON'T understand - councillors changed their minds only after massive public objections and a brilliant campaign by local residents to building on Brent Lea. I'm not sure if you are being deliberately provocative or daft, this is Metropolitan Open Land and was given to the people of Brentford for their leisure and enjoyment. Either we take a stand on this type of issue or we will not have any green spaces left. You may wish to live in that sort of world, many of us do not. And further we do not take very kindly to councillors riding roughshod over local people and failing to consult with them on such proposals, this is becoming a very nasty habit and they need to understand that they are there to represent us, this borough is not their personal fiefdom to do as they like.

Vanessa Smith ● 3654d

So if I understand the situation correctly, councillors overturned the decision to allow a temporary school building on the Lea, because it took up 14% of the surface area of the Lea.I hope the petition ‘Objection to the Appropriation and Loss of a large part of the 'Brent Lea Recreation Ground'Trust Land’ played no part in the decision that the councillors came to as 14% in no way constitutes a large part of the Lea.Those petitioning local residents appear to have worded their petition in a deeply misleading manner and as such the petition should have had no weight attached to it.

Germaine Campbell ● 3654d

GermaineThe temporary school would have occupied 14%. The enlarged permanent school 33% plus.

John Todd ● 3655d

The original 'temporary' application was to be for two forms only, for two years, what was going to happen when that 'temporary' time ran out no-one was saying, on top of that there is no way that the school would stay as originally envisaged with this pressure for primary places. Therefore it follows that more space equals more land, and therefore less for public use.

Vanessa Smith ● 3655d

The argument that the development was about removing land from public use is a poor one.Two thirds of the Lea would have remained open for recreational use and the trust would have paid rent - allowing the remaining recreational area to be improved.In addition to the obvious educational use I'm sure the school have could have provided extra facilities for locals to use outside school hours - my niece's school opens their hall to a scout group and a keep fit class among other things.The development at least to me appeared to be about changing the function of a small proportion of the Lea from public recreation to public education.Councillor Hearn on what are you basing your fears that a permanent school on the site would occupy a foot print larger than the proposed temporary structure?Do you and the council know something that we the residents do not?

Germaine Campbell ● 3655d

Absolutely right - and is there anyone who is so naïve as to think that this school - had it gone on Brent Lea wouldn't have come back time and again to expand and take more and more of that area? Tips of icebergs and thin ends of wedges spring to mind.

Vanessa Smith ● 3655d

Yes school places are needed but to take away public open land is wrong.

Neil Chippendale ● 3655d

How would you suggest the missing school places needed are supplied? Hounslow has a legal obligation to provide school places and our surrounding boroughs cannot support the overflow anymore as they have their own problems. A school is needed, like it or not. It is no longer a solution to bulk out other schools. Which would we prefer, a school, a supermarket or land ultimately being sold off for yet another development of luxury apartments. We only need to look at recent local developments for that!

Lily McNamee ● 3655d

Will the councillors who opposed the Brent Lea site be supporting the school on the alternate site in the GWQ?

Mohamed Hsino ● 3656d

It will be interesting to see the report that has been commissioned by the Hounslow Cabinet on the future use of metropolitan open land. If we genuinely do not value the public resource that areas like Brent Lea represent then their long term future is indeed bleak. The Brentford Floreat proposal may have some merit in its own right but ultimately salami slicing activities such as this are very likely to be just the thin end of the wedge. Does anyone really think that a permanent school on the site at Brent Lea would not have covered a considerably larger area?

Cllr Sam Hearn ● 3656d

The majority of the Lea would have remained available to residents– the argument that the development would have prejudiced the rights of locals is a non-starter.Also it is patently clear that the volume of dog excrement on this site makes it wholly unsuitable for general recreational use. The only people I ever see on the Lea are dog walkers – who ironically through their thoughtlessness make it next to impossible for anyone else to use.Further with regard to claims that the Lea was popular with picnickers and joggers I must salute the sense of humour of those who dreamed this up- I know I laughed out loud when I heard it! Though maybe sly would be a better description of this particular move?

Germaine Campbell ● 3656d

It doesn't matter if only part of the park was handed over. The Northumberlands gave the land to the people of Brentford to use for recreation, not for a school. The Council and Officers should be ashamed what they are trying to do with various parks in the borough.

Neil Chippendale ● 3656d

The title of the petition was ''Objection to the Appropriation and Loss of a large part of the 'Brent Lea Recreation Ground'Trust Land.''The grounds for objection also clearly written.This has nothing to do with the school at present. If the land is appropriated the council do not have to promise to do anything in return. That is why it is so serious and there is no facility for a 'call in' of the decision this time.

Joanna Russell ● 3657d

My reading of the application was that the school would only take up one third of the Brent Lea site and that Floreat would be paying the council rent, which I believe had been committed to improving the remainder of the Lea. Do you happen to know if this fact was made clear to those who signed the petition opposing the development? Also can you post a link to the document that details the ‘capital receipt’ as I would be most interested reading it?

Germaine Campbell ● 3657d

That works out less than it costs to rent a lock up garage per week with no services or facilities.Fine except money is made by Floreat despite the guff about non profit making etc.

Raymond Havelock ● 3657d

I believe that was the 'capital receipt' that Floreat was intending to give the council for the 125 year lease, which is obviously less than market value even for a long lease rather than freehold.

Ian Speed ● 3658d

Can I ask where the figure of £60,000 that you quote came from – I’m assuming it wasn’t just plucked out of thin air?

Germaine Campbell ● 3658d

Well done Victor.Your reputation in Ealing is legend for exposing the shenanigans of Ealing Planning department and inept councillors.I hope you are able to to bring the same enlightened and intelligent rationale to this town as well and that more with you skills and understanding will be encouraged by your fearless involvements.

Raymond Havelock ● 3659d

None of us will be having any sort of celebration until the council has decided not to appropriate the rec and Floreat have found a site for their permanent school. We have a long way to go before the corks pop out of the Champagne.Thanks to all of you who put your names on our petition of almost 1,400.

Joanna Russell ● 3659d

Please review your post. If everything is OK, click Submit below. Otherwise,click the Back button on your browser to make corrections.Topic: 1,400 Objections to Appropriation Message:The "Brent Lea Recreation Ground" is a very pleasant and attractive area. It's really lovely, like a small Park.The 1961 Conveyance covered a large area for the building of very many flats (without gardens) and only 3 houses with the areas for the Recreation Ground and Parkland clearly designated for Play Areas, Games Court, Garden Land, etc.From some of the surrounding flats, residents can watch their children play in safety and even blow a whistle to call them in for supper!  Children do not have to travel afar to play or cross a public road, so the Public Open Space is a godsend to the residents who live all around the Brent Lea Recreation Ground. Likewise, elderly residents on the estate can enjoy the open space within a short distance from their homes.The Open Space was promised to be "for ever" and the original Council undertook to observe these terms.  It was only by chance that in the 1980's that Mrs Thatcher allowed a relaxation of the strict Trust Law to permit Councils to break their covenanted promises and trusts.  Sometimes, breach of covenant causing loss of value can result in financial claims against the Council but usually people living near to Parks and Open Spaces that they have enjoyed for decades would prefer peace and quiet rather than damages and having to make court claims.When the Council gave this solemn promise in 1961, it was not expecting to be allowed to dishonour it.At Gunnersbury Park, in addition to the parkland status, there are restrictive covenants benefiting dozens of houses that back on to the Park and on several occasions the Councils of Ealing and Hounslow have had to be reminded of that fact. The former Labour MP for Hounslow supported residents and one of the campaigners (Ms Bela Cunha) of the Gunnersbury Park Covenant Group (which I helped set up) was invited to meet the then Prime Minister Gordon Brown at 10 Downing Street to be thanked for her efforts in "saving" the Park.Yesterday afternoon, 1,390 objections were lodged in a joint Objection dated 30th July 2015 supported by the Friends of Brent Lea Recreation Ground plus 2 letters. This is in addition to letters sent in previously.I hope that Hounslow Council will reconsider their assault on a cherished green corner of Brentford which has been enjoyed as a Public Open Space by several generations of local people, and withdraw their Notices of Appropriation, which would immediately render the Park area under threat formally non-usable for Parkland purposes!In the meantime, on the very day that the Objections were lodged at the Council offices, the intended developer has announced that it has found an alternative "brownfield" location for the proposed school development.Victor Mishiku - "The Covenant Movement" 1/8/15

Victor Mishiku ● 3660d

According to the front page of the Hounslow Chronicle the next area for flogging off in the sights of this wonderful council is Hounslow's Municipal Golf Course on Hounslow Heath. Miraculously, but not surprisingly, this has again been described as 'an underused leisure facility', strange how all these sites fit into that category, pity we can't find out what methodology was used that led the council to that conclusion. The council envision  pitch and putt and driving range with model dinosaurs and mini waterfall.  Plus wait for it - a zoo and visitor centre spread over 120 acres. 500 parking spaces and another 400 spaces for "the surfing lake". The planning application is from Kidspace Adventure Holdings. And guess what? the council has already granted Kidspace a 125 year lease for the land! To quote 'Private Eye' trebles all round!

Vanessa Smith ● 3667d

Well certainly Ms. Ruane is the person who declared how this area was not deficient in green space when trying to support the nabbing of Brent Lea the other week, she was also the person who tried to justify the horses as well as telling the Local Government Ombudsman how the 'working party' was up and running. It might just be me but there seems to be a pattern emerging here?

Vanessa Smith ● 3669d

Hmm, I'll have to take a look back at the precise wording of the questions that I asked before deciding whether the respondent was being in any way economical with the actualité.  One or two officers in more than one department certainly do seem prepared to go the extra mile for this bunch though, don't they?

Phil Andrews ● 3670d

Well, you will not be surprised to hear that you have been fed more porkies then.In the papers for the Cabinet Single Member decision there are a couple of items.Redlees Park  Temporary play area, café & other short term work to improve site £33,610 (Sarah Ruane Head of Leisure)Redlees Park  Changing room facilities & other improvements - funding for Redlees Park 'masterplan' £363,000 (Cllr. S. Sampson)This is odd given that there was a long discussion about getting the existing play area open and running the other week. And both these items want money for 'other' improvements - one 'short term' and the famous café (name of person to run this not specified - yes really!) And Cllr. Sampson's 'other' improvements - what is the difference between these?

Vanessa Smith ● 3670d

That will be the café then, I assume.  I submitted an FOI request on this but was told there are no plans *yet* - the stock response in these situations.  We need as a community to be on top of this because they really do seem to be going for broke now.

Phil Andrews ● 3670d

"There is much talk in Isleworth of Redlees Park being next on the hit list."At the Redlees 'Friends' meeting the other week there was much made of a 'masterplan' for the park by Cllr. Sampson, no-one else having any knowledge of this whatsoever, they just probably haven't found a scrap of paper to scribble it on yet. I wouldn't trust this lot of numpties as far as I could see them. We are still awaiting the formation of the famous 'working party' that the Dear Leader banged on to all and sundry about to consult on our small park, not to mention assuring the Local Government Ombudsman that they had indeed formed the 'working party'? Unfortunately not one of the three local councillors will tell anyone what stage this has reached, talking vaguely of 'suggestions and ideas' they will 'consult' on. We might just as well have two year olds running things, we DO need to all come together, someone has to stop these b*st*rds from riding roughshod over local people and doing their pitiful deals without any consideration for the people they should be representing.

Vanessa Smith ● 3670d

Heather - I would put a slightly more positive spin on what was said. EFA can decide in what area a school that meets the Government's should be built BUT it is up to the Council to find sites that comply with the planning laws. EFA has no carte-blanche to overturn existing planning laws. If LBH identifies possible sites located on metropolitan open land .....

Cllr Sam Hearn ● 3670d

If there is a Redlees Park group then Save Our Rec are happy to join forces with them. The leader is going to be so sick of seeing all the same faces each time. We need to join up borough wide, and present a strong and united front.

Joanna Russell ● 3670d

There is much talk in Isleworth of Redlees Park being next on the hit list.  We need to be on full scale alert all the time, and to share any information any of us come by - even if it is not confirmed.

Phil Andrews ● 3670d

It was disturbing that Heather Cheesbrough, assistant director of Regeneration, Economic development and Environment, said at the cabinet meeting last night that the EFA can choose where they want a school to go, and the only way a LA can oppose it is through planning? Watch your back gardens!

Joanna Russell ● 3670d

There is at least one other park already at risk of having a school built on it. Also everyone seems to have forgotten that the Lampton Road Civic Centre was built on part of Lampton Park. Now the Civic Centre is to be closed this land will be sold off for housing and not returned to its original public use as a park.  Plus we all know what is happening in Gunnersbury Park - see public consultation meeting 7.00 pm this Thursday at the Small Mansion in Gunnersbury Park.

Cllr Sam Hearn ● 3670d

Objectors should write to the officer even though we know it will make no difference and that letters will probably not even be read.This way should this be challenged through any other route in the future objectors will be able to demonstrate that they have followed every route available to them beforehand.It seems pretty clear from this and events in Isleworth that our current crop of councillors see our parks and open land as their own property, to be closed down and dispensed with without reference to users as they see fit - in the case of Isleworth to be handed to their personal friends for their own exclusive use.It is important that the battle for Brent Lea be fought to the end, whatever the legalities or legal complexities of the Council's actions.  With the principle having been established there is every likelihood that our other parks will be disposed of in a similarly high-handed fashion and we need to ensure that each and every abuse of their own voters' trust achieves all the publicity it deserves.

Phil Andrews ● 3670d

Same meat. Same sandwich. Different packaging. Its not what Hounslow's Labour Group says its what they do. You can fool some of the people all of the time is the guiding principle.

Cllr Sam Hearn ● 3670d