A repeat of my previous post - apologies. I'm new to this!There now follows about 1500 words by way of a contribution to this conversation so if you are sitting comfortably…I have walked and run round the park for a number of years, visited the museum, taken kids to the playground, pitched and putted and generally enjoyed the space and its amenities. Five or six years ago whilst thus occupied I wondered why it wasn't being enjoyed and used by more children or come to that adults for sport and games. A huge expanse of grass is not just for looking at generally speaking although I could see why a house abutting the park might prefer to see the grass undeveloped and - if the homeowner was a truly credible example/exponent of the human condition - infrequently crowded.I confess that, when exploring that train of thought further, in the mansions I envisaged perfectly proportioned school facilities and in the grounds I saw space, fresh air and life for children. I also saw huge costs to undertake such a vision. Undeterred I did approach Hounslow to sound them out with the concept of a school and it was this that you refer to as the 'idea floated by the Councillors 5 years ago'. I was told then that the Councils were interested in more holistic, whole ideas for the Park as opposed to a piecemeal approach (i.e. small or large mansions only) and was asked to put forward a formal “Expression of Interest”. For the record my own school idea was also for a private or independent establishment and it was not because I wanted only the most privileged/moneyed/elite parents and their children to be able to afford the opportunity of being within the park's wonderful space - it was just plain old maths and accounting. How could you raise several millions of pounds to restore and refurbish the tired old mansion(s) without resorting to commercialism to pay the coupon on a bond or the interest/capital on a loan? Returning to the vision though, I pictured a school that was used by children by day and for free adult education in the evening. I saw genuine shared use with a school that was designed with the welfare and safety of minors at its heart, given that it would be sitting in the middle of a place that the public had and would continue to have access to. I saw a building(s) that was entirely self- sufficient from an energy perspective with ground source heat pumps and EH sanctioned discreet solar panelling – selling power back to the grid at weekends. In the holidays it would be open to the public or used for summer school or holiday courses. Sports would be on the curriculum in a major way and the children would be prepared for significant sporting success and pride – something sadly lacking in this day and age. The school would provide bursaries for local children to study there. A Gunnersbury Park foundation would be set up as a charitable trust and the school would distribute a certain proportion of its profits as a grant to go towards maintenance and upkeep of other facilities in the park. I saw leisure facilities being shared with the public in a sensible and efficient way. Above all, my passion, yes unashamed passion was to see what was once something grand be turned gently and yet positively into a source of superior modern day usefulness – turn a ballroom into a science laboratory, stables into DT workshops or an art block, put kids, yes real kids onto the rugby/football/cricket pitches 3 times a week and at weekends make it something that works for itself and not just a default to the relentless repetition of the words “something that was bequeathed to the public for their leisure and peaceful enjoyment”. I respect those words I really do but I do think that their relevance needs to be tested. I did some research and I found an opinion prepared by a barrister, a QC no less, I think, with an address near Temple who had been asked, by the Councils, to look at whether the covenant could be overturned/ignored or whatever you like to call it. His opinion was that it could and if my reading of it is correct this is why. If the council can demonstrate that the park buildings/property has fallen into an advanced state of disrepair and that they are faced with no option demolish or fence for safety then options that would have hitherto been at odds with the covenant might be considered. The opinion acknowledged that the real beneficiaries of the covenant was not The General Public but were limited in number. Those who have the language included in their deeds/freeholds know who you are I guess. I’m very sorry if I haven’t understood it or recorded it properly but if you want to check the facts and dig this opinion out I’m sure it’s still available somewhere. My further understanding of the opinion was that, no, correction, is that – The Council(s) have (1) actively and visibly budgeted for maintenance and upkeep of the properties and (2) they have actively and visibly spent the money on said upkeep and maintenance (3) they have undertaken (at material expense) a consultation project to determine the future of the park and its buildings (4) they have engaged with the public in this process (5) they have investigated and established sources of funding for their plans for the park (6) funding has proved difficult to obtain/failed to materialise (7) the state of the buildings is now impossible to ignore (8) negligence could be proven through non-feasance (8) they are legally obliged to seek alternative options and challenge the covenant restrictions. I suppose that where I’m going with this point is that degree by degree the managers of Gunnersbury Park have manoeuvred themselves into a position of legal strength from which they will seek to overturn (?) the covenant and restrictions of use. I respectfully venture to suggest that they would not have come to any agreement with Alpha without having taken further opinion that would support this course of action. In my own opinion this is your line in the sand and I wish you luck.What other research did I do? I looked into real instances of public access to private school sports facilities; Royal Ballet School in residence in the middle of Richmond Park at the White Lodge(?) – originally Ken Livingstone had torpedoed its application and thought they should find something on a brownfield site in Streatham but they persevered and he was overruled; almost wrote to Mr Dyson to see if he would be interested in establishing the Royal Society of Inventors/Engineers/Manufacturers and might he consider the prestigious and beautiful setting of the Gunnersbury Park mansion (either/or); I looked into the walled garden project of Chiswick House as a scheme within Hounslow’s bailiwick where the public had taken control of something that had been previously barred to them, they took it back and made it useful. Made it useful by bringing people together to enjoy it and enjoyed it by producing stuff a.k.a. allotments and collective farms/kibbutz. Do you see that this was not the furrowed brow and grasping hand of the self-serving entreprenueur/oligarch ripping off the public purse and robbing it of its assets, this was just A Person who wanted to do something that served more people than just a handful (relatively speaking) which brings me onto Community with a capital C.Actually it doesn’t, I think that if you have read this far you will be saying “please no!” so maybe I’ll do that another time. So to conclude and turn your mind back to 5 years ago. Remember the economic cliff we went over as taxpayers and consumers? Our banks collapsed and the borrowing of money became virtually impossible overnight. Funding a private school in a Grade II listed building on English Heritage’s ‘At Risk Register’? I don’t think so sunshine! Besides, I had no experience and dreams are never completely aligned with business plans and so, I left it at that. An itch unscratched. Three years ago I became involved in the West London Free School project with Toby Young and his group. Mr Young was looking for a site and was I think very interested in Gunnersbury – he could see what I had seen myself - but being pragmatic and politically attuned he recognised that whilst a new Government might get traction with their new ideas for education they couldn’t possibly entertain pouring money into old mansions in Ealing/Hounslow to revive them and change their original purpose, whilst Portacabins were being parked in playgrounds to cope with increased numbers in the same boroughs. So to respond to the many who say “yes, if it were open to all, I’d be OK with a school in the park” – I’m afraid it isn’t very likely to happen. Besides it’s actually quite difficult to get your child into a good free school. And so I stand in favour of Alpha Plus’ attempt to secure the mansion for education and I wish them luck. I hope that the council doesn’t grant them a whopping long lease that can be transferred and sold; I hope they don’t rope off more park than they need to and that it doesn’t mean we can’t walk around the small mansion when it has been beautifully refurbished; I hope that the Councils don’t bend over backwards to get rid of the millstone round their neck of an aged, listed, decrepit public building; they really can be clever about this and they don’t have to sell off the family silver but above all they certainly shouldn’t feel that the only way out of this mess is to sell parkland for house building.And to anyone still reading this I hope that you don’t pick holes in every little bit of what I have written but leave with an uplifting sense that there are more people on the same page as you than you thought. They don’t share all of your views but they would like to respectfully remind you that some of the best goals are common ones.
Alistair Milward ● 4670d