Forum Topic

Gunnersbury Park Bowls Club

An almost identical planning application was refused In April 2020. The current proposal was recommended for refusal at Hounslow Planning Committee in January 2021, when the Committee resolved to defer their decision "to allow for the masterplan for Gunnersbury Park to be presented". The latest officer report recommends approval without mentioning the revised masterplan. This must be because the masterplan, which will be subject to community consultation, has yet to be published. The compelling planning reasons for refusing this application remain unchanged from those that obtained in April 2020. Consistency in decision-making is one of the pillars in securing public confidence in the operation of the planning system.

Jim Storrar ● 1514d37 Comments

It's easier to use a senior citizen to implement back door Ageist policies.Plenty of stooges available.

Raymond Havelock ● 1490d

I believe Councillor Lambert is, himself, a Senior Citizen.

Anne England ● 1491d

No doubt Cllr Lambert will be at the official opening and will write about it in his amusing blog, perhaps with a suitably captioned picture.One assumes that most older members of the community were too terrified to leave their homes to fight for their club during the pandemic – the very real risk of death would have prevented any real effort to keep up momentum from these people during the last 16 months or so. They might have assumed, those who survived anyway, that their club would be waiting for them once it was again safe to meet outside. It must seem particularly cruel for those who have weathered the Covid storm to have had their club stolen from them – for some, their only chance to socialise and exercise. What a despicable thing for the CIC and council, under cover of the pandemic, to have done to our senior citizens who clearly had no possibility to fight to maintain their little bit of community. Will Cllr Lambert be celebrating this victory at the expense of our older generation in his blog – you bet he will.

Graham Thorpe ● 1491d

It appears whilst one is the front man and fall Guy, another ward councillor was instrumental in brokering this deal. Whilst completely evading any sort of engagement on the issue with residents and the Bowls Club.  It gets more and more murky. Hopefully more will be forthcoming on this.We shall see.

Raymond Havelock ● 1499d

No doubt Cllr Lambert will be at the official opening and will write about itbin his amusing blog, perhaps with a suitably captioned picture.

Simon Hayes ● 1500d

Very well put.In other words Spineless and Gullible and easy led by those they choose to follow.

Raymond Havelock ● 1500d

'Clearly the decision to close the bowls club was decided many months ago - this was always a fait accompli and any consultations were the usual window-dressing to try and fool people that their views might be considered. It's part of the wider policy to impose unpopular changes against the express wishes to the majority'And not only in this instance either - we seem to have a council run by highly paid officers who override councillors who are supine in the extreme, and who are allowed to take a 'Chief Officer' decision they then 'share' with elected members, and who also decide to 'set aside' the objections/views of a consultation exercise with local people. It is just going through the motions, it is insulting and unacceptable. We elect councillors NOT paid officials who probably do not have any knowldege of the area they are pontificating about. Our councillors need to start flexing their political muscles and finding some backbone and wake up to the fact they are there to represent us, not to rollover and take the easy options.

Vanessa Smith ● 1500d

Which would not have happened without the CiC pressuring councillors to have the application called in."Stuff the local electorate and the many who signed a petition.  We've got mates to look after."No surprise that Putt in the Park is actually owned by a property development company and has a history of dubious deals with councils and undermining Bolws clubs with more senior age groups.Nasty, ageist and very short sighted as bowls is mushrooming globally and mainly with young people.A shameful decision and not in the public interest at all.

Raymond Havelock ● 1500d

Clearly the decision to close the bowls club was decided many months ago - this was always a fait accompli and any consultations were the usual window-dressing to try and fool people that their views might be considered. It's part of the wider policy to impose unpopular changes against the express wishes to the majority. The dumbing-down of park facilities to appeal to the lowest common denominator will continue - opposition is pointless. "difficult choices" indeed.

Graham Thorpe ● 1500d

Well, no doubt they all know what’s best for the rest of us. The silence could be interpreted as quiet wisdom.

Simon Hayes ● 1503d

.......or they stay silent and avoid engagement other than on their own terms

Raymond Havelock ● 1503d

There’s no accounting for gullibility, naivety it plain stupidity. Clearly very little effort was made to establish the truth here.Think about the old joke: ‘how do you know when a politician is lying?’ ‘He opens his mouth’Many a true word and all that...

Simon Hayes ● 1503d

But were you mislead and lied to?  The CIC have made statements far from accurate and honest.

Raymond Havelock ● 1504d

I have told no lies and had no preconceptions about this. I have set out my thoughts transparently.If you choose to see this as lying that's your affair.

Guy Lambert ● 1504d

Like all these things the councillors and others are following a pre-agreed narrative.‘This is what we want to happen, this is how we can make it happen, and this is what we will agree to say to make it seem we are reasonable people.’Of course the bowls club was doomed from the moment the CIC took over. But they weren’t going to say that at the outset, but go through the pretence of ‘listening’ instead. However, the signs that appeared in the park some weeks back rather gave the game away.Never ceases to amaze me how deceitful public ‘servants’ often are. Lying about it just comes with the territory, regardless of political persuasion.

Simon Hayes ● 1504d

"As far as I can see the bowls club has never been a registered entity so the appointments of chair and other officers - or indeed whether the club actually exists, though I understand it has been registered with Bowls England throughout - are not in the public domain"Gunnersbury Park Bowls club has been a prominent fully accredited and registered  Bowls Club since the 1930s. It is one of the Key Clubs in the Middlesex County League, is fully register with Bowls England, recognised by the  Commonwealth games committee as a sport and regarded as having had one of the best playing surfaces for a single green club in the County and England.All well documented.The club has had a secretary, not a chair and the club was forced into a corner.According to several members, a member who wormed his way into the committee in recent times , for inexplicable reasons decided to unilaterally undermine the club dividing it and declaring it defunct. Without mandate from it's members.  Given that the club has not website or email ( why should it? Its a Bowls club for playing bowls) it's older members are being punished and discriminated for not being online.Is this the Chair Cllr Lambert spoke with?  Was his provenance checked?The club was booted out, but not wound up.  It could not do so as Covid prevented an EGM to ratify this.That should indicate why those active but senior citizen members were not participating in a meeting. In any case the protocol for such a meeting in present circumstances would not allow members to speak in any case.The club members were thus represented on behalf.From my observations, the same protocol was not applied to the applicants sponsor who was allowed to speak without the necessary pre-application.Murky, underhand and factually rather dubious.

Raymond Havelock ● 1505d

If the case had any merit, there wouldn't be any need to resort to being dismissive and belittling to those wanting to see bowling continue in GP. Using words like 'apparently', 'so-called', etc appended to facts which are true is just unpleasant. 'After all, there are plenty of other bowls clubs in the vicinity' is often thrown at us. Well, there is a Putt in the Park in Acton Park. That is close enough. Why do we need one in GP? What you are in fact saying is, 'Go away, you're not wanted in this park.'You also make a point of saying we have increased our membership though we 'have no facilities'. Who made sure of that? Our membership grew because they believed in our project for the future and hoped to make 'the people calling themselves the CIC' (to use the form of words they employ against us) see that we had a business plan, funding and lots of ideas on how to not just make sure bowling continued in GP but improving and widening the offer to the community. Why could the CIC not support us? Not financialluy, but, for example, simply by adding Bowling to all the other things they advertise on their posters. It is so sad to watch bowling be killed off simply because of short-sighted short-termism.

bela cunha ● 1505d

The reason I, for one, and there were others, did not attend the meeting in person was because I didn't want to be accused of being irresponsible and flouting the rules regarding numbers of people who can meet indoors. To try to represent that as a lack of interest is simply another (yet another!) misrepresentation of the facts.Another one is saying only 23 people bowled. Would you say of a football ground that only 11 people played?

bela cunha ● 1505d

I can confirm that I am indeed a fully paid-up member of the Bowls Club or, as the CIC would have it, "an entity calling itself Gunnersbury Park Bowls Club".As for Brentford Voice, I must check with our Membership Secretary that I have not yet again pulled off the old Scottish trick of not paying my subscription.To understate the situation, this has been a thoroughly unedifying saga in terms of commitment to community engagement and to a large, and very leaky, raft of adopted council policies, including those in the Hounslow Local Plan.There are so many points with which we would take issue that there is insufficient space here to make them all. I'll offer just one example. At the Planning Committee meeting, the CIC stated that the Bowls Club had been unable to meet the terms of a full repairing lease. Despite numerous requests, including a Freedom of Information request, no one has been able or willing to give us sight of the terms of this lease.

Jim Storrar ● 1505d

No mocking intended. I had heard that 40 people had recently joined the bowls club and thought possibly you or Jim might be amongst them. From what you say I assume Jim is a member, otherwise the club was not represented at all. I'm not beholden to anybody but local people. You think an amenity which you think is ugly will provide less benefit to local people in general than the bowling green. I disagree, is all.As I hope you know, I greatly respect your local knowledge and the work you do for the local history society. We differ on this matter, which I regret.

Guy Lambert ● 1505d

Guy Lambert knows perfectly well that I spoke at the planning meeting on behalf of the Friends and not in a personal capacity. And suggesting mockingly that I might be a bowls club member was irrelevant. Jim Storrar represented the Club as well as Brentford Voice. The status of the bowls club and its past history should have had nothing to do with the planning decision. Bowling could have been fostered and managed in a variety of ways for future public enjoyment. You chose an ugly modern commercial golf-themed activity over a 90 year old traditional bowls green and pavilion in a Grade II* registered park. How did everyone become so beholden to Putt in the Park so quickly that they could use these kinds of comments to dismiss a long-established amenity in the Park?

Valerie Bott ● 1506d

Gunnersbury Park “Sports Hub” is an environmental disaster. More than half a million square feet of the park has now been concreted over, or has been submerged under astroturf (which kills everything beneath it). Meanwhile, Colditz-style floodlighting is wreaking havoc with the remaining wildlife in the park.Who on earth allowed this to happen?

David Marshall ● 1506d

apologies for the redundant apostrophe.

Keith Iddon ● 1506d

I have just read on 'My West London' that the putting area will be Astro Turf.  If this is true, it is absolutely horrifying. How can this be supported by Councillors?

Joan Adamson ● 1506d

More profit over people.I sincerely hope the golf venture falls flat on it's arse and if the prices stated are true, I wouldn't be surprised if it does.You can get 9 holes of real golf for less than a tenner elsewhere.On the park there used to be just about the best pitch and putt course you would ever come across,but it was closed down in the name of 'progress'.

Keith Iddon ● 1506d

And there were 23 bowlers (NOT 12), plus the bowlers from visiting clubs who those 23 competed with.

bela cunha ● 1506d

They could have put the crazy golf somewhere else in this huge park and kept the bowling green. Of course, taking over bowls greens is what Putt in the Park do. It is the most convenient and the cheapest option for them. Absolutely no value is ascribed to the bowling amenity. An alternative site might be more expensive in the short term, but certainly wouldn't cost the totally ridiculous sum of £3 million the owner of Putt in the Park, Justin Fish, quoted.620 people signed a petition in support of keeping the bowling facility. Totally ignored. Councils couldn't care less what we think or would like to see happen locally. We're only here to pay the council tax - and shut up.If it's only there to do as the Councils demand, might as well not bother with a Planning Department - could save a lot of money that way.

bela cunha ● 1506d

TONIGHT! UPDATE: WHAT ABOUT LONELINESS IN OLDER PEOPLE? In an addendum – posted just before tonight's meeting – Hounslow Council now say: " Council received comments suggesting that the proposed development would have a disproportionate impact on older people who use the current facility, leading to those people suffering increased loneliness, disruption to routines and limits to opportunities for safe and/or gentle exercise. The Council recognises the importance of facilities like bowls clubs to older people and that such facilities can be more important to these members of the community than others."While it is not possible to conclude that a particular sport or pastime is exactly the same as another, the nature of the facility being proposed will, in our view, be of a similar community value to older people through enabling socialising and providing a safe environment for the enjoyment of a leisurely pastime and, simultaneously, gentle exercise. There are, in addition, specific benefits in the form of subsidised membership rates for older people."The words to note in this are these 'in our view' - just whose view? Those of planning officers, councillors? Which of them are qualified to take a view about what is or isn't beneficial to older people? It is just patronising piffle so that once again a public park can be used for making money.So, Guy can you please shed some light on whose 'view' this refers to? Looking at all the comments on this isssue - I just wonder how much the opinions of the people who vote for you and your comrades mean, rarely if ever was a decision met with such derision and disgust. Whoever made the decision to throw the future of the park on the not so tender mercies of this CIC have a lot to answer for. Why  not work with the Bowls club and promote the game and the facilities that were there, rather than be eager to grab the money and run?

Vanessa Smith ● 1506d

I knew I would be the villain of the piece here so I'm going to make a short comment about why I see it as I do.When I first heard of the bowls club going about 2.5 years ago I think, I spoke to one of the CIC directors to protest and we both took it up with the CIC management, but in the end were persuaded that bowls was not viable, with the club, by then apparently defunct having handed back the keys, having had only 20-odd members of whom only about half were active.About a year ago I spotted on social media that some bowlers were seeking access to the green. I rang a prominent member of the bowls club to see if I could help.I was told by this member that the bowls club had folded and they had sold their equipment and there was no intention of trying to restart, just for the few remaining members who hadn't made alternative arrangements to access for 'rolldowns'.I was unable to persuade the CIC to allow this access. There was no bowls club entity to take responsibility and the CIC were worried about liabilities. You may think this is over-cautious and I wouldn't disagree, but responsible authorities are like that in these days when there is always scope for litigation if anyone is injured.I brokered a meeting between the revived bowls club and the CIC a little while ago, as the demands for a bowls club had been reignited on social media. I was unable to foster a meeting of minds or a compromise, as I had hoped.The person who is now chair of the bowls club said the previous chair didn't represent them when he handed back the keys to the CIC at the end of 2019 and accepted that the bowls club was no more. As far as I can see the bowls club has never been a registered entity so the appointments of chair and other officers - or indeed whether the club actually exists, though I understand it has been registered with Bowls England throughout - are not in the public domain. Nobody from the bowls club turned up at the planning meeting, where the case was put by Brentford Voice and the Friends of Gunnersbury Park (though it's possible Jim or Val Bott may be among the 40 who have apparently joined the bowls club recently, despite the lack of facilities).I went to the meeting expecting to abstain, but came to the conclusion that what I believe will be a popular attraction for families and people of all ages will be a better use of the park than a bowls club which had dwindled to 20 odd members and had failed to grow during the period when it had a licence from the CIC and had been encouraged to do so. I admire Jim's and Val's passion for speaking up for bowls, and I fully respect my friends Mel Collins and Tony Louki, and my Conservative friend John Todd, for taking a different view, but I'm afraid I don't think it's the best use of the park today.

Guy Lambert ● 1507d

The sad thing about this whole matter is that the CIC and some councillors were obsessed with the Club while the Friends were concerned about the loss of a traditional sporting amenity which had been there for 90 years. The Club gave up one green to contribute part of the site for the new Sports Hub and could not play during the long delayed constrction process - indeed the builders dumped stuff on part of the remaining green. Yet they were included in all the planning processes throughout the Regeneration (before the CIC arrived) and given the strong impression that they would resume, aided by the opening of the new sporting facilities. The fact remains that there was special pleading in the planning report, presumably steered by council offers or cabinet members. There seems to have been a desire to approve this before consultation on the carefully developed revised Master Plan begins this summer. The issue on which the proposal was rejected previously, that there was no consultation process (required by Hounslow policies) which might have found another user for this community asset and no tender process, remains. The CIC has gone in with a property developement company that runs a few shoddy crazy golf courses for the sake of some extra income. And the firm was introduced by one of the lead councillors on the CIC Board. Very sad, very shameful and without a rigorous "Heritage Impact Assessment" as normally required in a Grade II* park.

Valerie Bott ● 1507d

I understand that the COE reassured the club on more than a few occasions that they would be 'completely unaffected' by the CIC and the plans for the Park.If you Google Putt in the Park - owned by a Property Development company, they have a history of targeting small clubs and colluding with Council Executives.Is Crazy Golf a Sport?  How will that be 'free to schools'  It's a novelty recreation. Not a clever and tactical sport like bowls which ironically can be played from 12 upwards. And is cheap and affordable. Unlike the £50 it will set a family of 4 back to do putting which ironically was just 2.50 and free for all kids in the Park just 5 years ago.

Raymond Havelock ● 1507d

Unfortunately Mike, I don't think they have any shame. They seem to know the cost of everything and the value of nothing - morons. Didn't just one of these know-alls ask where the bloody 'Masterplan' was?

Vanessa Smith ● 1507d

A disgusting stitch-up which has been in the works for several years it would seem with a foregone conclusion. No? The giveaway was a month or two ago when they put up the map at Gunnersbury with the Putt in the Park clearly labelled on it. Snakes. The bowlers have been evicted from their 90 year home by bully boy CIC and their collaborators. I don't play bowls myself, in fact I am a keen golfer. But we all know a clear moral injustice when we see it. Shame on Guy Lambert and his colleagues who voted this through. Shame on them all.

Mike Paterson ● 1507d

Absolutely - it's what's known as 'managed decline', let something deliberately decay and then say it's all too much to re-instate it in its former state - good excuse to get rid of it. Exactly the same thing that the Duke of Northumberland is doing with the Park Rd. allotments.

Vanessa Smith ● 1507d

For anyone who knows the park, the green was in perfect condition until the CIC locked out the club.It has been forcibly put into dereliction. Which contrary to the quotes by Cllr Lambert was is full season use by the club. He omits the fact that away teams mean that the actual numbers using the Green is twice that of the playing membership.The club has been hampered by the building works causing access problems and H&S issues over the protracted construction of the Sports Hub and the bullying and nasty method used by the CiC towards a club of genuine local people of all demographics whose only flaw was being older citizens who were not proficient in modern methods.They were bullied and preyed on.The really sad thing is the actions of those who should have stood up against bullying and connivance but chose to support that with unsound rhetoric.A Shameless, Ageist, and Myopic kick in the teeth to local people just to serve the elitist desires of the CIC and it's chums.

Raymond Havelock ● 1507d

What you saw is nothing to do with shade, but the result of deliberate actions by the CIC, absolutely determined to resort to any means to ensure that the green would deteriorate so much that it would be rendered unusable.David Bowler, its CEO, repeatedly refused access to the Bowls Club, who wanted to carry on maintaining the green as they had done for over 20 years at no cost to the Councils or the CIC. He refused access to Capel Manor, who had helped with the greenkeeping and had used the green for some of its courses on the upkeep of sports greens. And he also refused to contemplate allowing access to a fully accredited and insured gardening company.Gunnersbury Park's bowling green used to be considered one of the best in the area. This was a deliberate act of vandalism to ensure the destruction of a park community amenity so that it could be replaced by a commercial enterprise, relying largely on the sale of alcohol (as in its other outlets) to make vast profits.620 people signed a petition in support of keeping bowls in the park and were just ignored.

bela cunha ● 1507d

The latest news story quotes Tony Louki referring to it as "a well-manicured bowls green" - but the last time I looked, it was largely moss.I suspect that's thanks in large part to the constant shade it now gets from the sports centre. But really, I'm afraid it's no longer a sustainable facility. )-:

Bryan Betts ● 1507d