Forum Topic

Gunnersbury Park - What if.....

Thought I would peel away from the debate around the park being under threat of development by a commercial enterprise and see if we can get something going on the subject of - "INSTEAD"Picking up on the anger felt by some at the thought of a Labour Council waving through a scheme that flies in the face of the state education system and ignores social "ownership" of an asset. Noting the affront felt by those inextricably linked to the covenant under threat and how for them there is no getting around the fact that it exists and in perpetuity.Also sensing that there are observers out there who whilst they may not sympathise they do acknowledge the woeful state of local authority finances. That, politics aside, the administrators/managers of the park have boxed themselves into a corner having let the park and its buildings become so run down over the years for one reason or another.The facts are that the populations of Hounslow and Ealing come to around 590,000 and in Ealing there are around 50 dependants for every 100 working age people compared to a London average of 45-odd. You can make some assumptions on the council tax per household and what that means in terms in the per capita/domicile levy that a capital intensive project such as a restoration and refurbishment of the Parks buildings might entail. And whatever your own answer comes out to you can imagine what a complicated political "sell" that might be even if it were just one council managing the parks affairs. So, would it or would it not be fair or safe to assume that the two councils will struggle massively to come up with a golden egg/solution for Gunnersbury Park. Could they hope to find a solution that realistically enables them to retain the park's status quo and by that I mean keeping it as - 100+acres of green with a collection of fine buildings for the enjoyment of many but in practice the pleasure of but a few?Now to the What if...?What if there were no council involvement? Instead a Trustee body were created to manage the "estate" with the help of a grant from the councils which would be in the order of £300,000 to £450,000 (I think those were the last figures I saw in a budget for the Park). If the buildings were in good nick and the landscaping sorted that would be enough to have the railings painted, the bins emptied, the grass cut, the lines painted etc etc. But the buildings are all in a sorry state so what is to be done? Where are the many, many millions to be found to fix them? Lottery? Sports Council grant? Brentford FC? London Assembly? Any number of those options put forward by those costly consultants - they are all chip-ins, contributions. There is a huge shortfall and that, they have proposed, is made up by triggering a perfecting legal planning solution (covenant notwithstanding). Its called Enabling Development and it translates into flats and houses in the South West corner. Well, thats just for this decade but in 30 years time when the buildings need a further injection of capital the land bank (park) probably puts up another 10 acres in the South East. Its relatively easy to see that the 200 years  - that people keep mentioning - of being deprived of the small mansion to look at is the equivalent of getting rid of 40 or so acres of park to pay for the upkeep. Does that make any sense?Devils advocate. What if there were no buildings? What if we petitioned English Heritage and said - we can't bring ourselves to sell to a developer (Alpha); our councils can't afford to restore them; we don't want to build on the park to pay for it either so if they can't be used let's just flatten them. No point just looking at a building - even less point looking at a building clad in scaffolding with big signs saying "KEEP OUT" plastered all over it. The General Public can't really enjoy the buildings - Large Mansion museum is nice enough, could be improved but its just a ground floor. Not allowed upstairs. Orangery,closed and empty, Temple open for school visits; Victorian kitchen ditto; stables "danger keep out"; bathhouse closed; Small Mansion closed. Take these away and you have some sports facilities to keep maintained, a playground to smarten up, a pond to keep clean etc. I guess that that is what happens when a private enterprise takes a look at a building in the park the councils say to themselves - Oh good, getting rid of something that nobody uses. I'll just leave it here for now and see if anyone else wants to come in with some thoughts? I've tried to provoke debate and not be prescriptive as I think that its too easy to take pot shots at the Councils and just a bit more useful to try and work out what we could realistically do and do better than the elected people.

Alistair Milward ● 4490d13 Comments

Bump

John Colwell ● 4479d

I don't know anyone who has been inside it.I played in that corner of the park from 1967 for years and it was always closed up. I visit the park 3 times a week even now. I walked around it today.It's a nice building to look at but the grounds around it are far better to use and enjoy. If the building is converted to a school it will have to conform to all current regulations to allow it's use for under 16s.It will be gutted and will be like the mansion at Gatton Park near Reigate.It looks lovely on the outside but more or less like any school on the inside.Anyway, what has the inside of the mansion got to do with the immediate  200m of surroundings around it?

Michael Brandt ● 4486d

You say"Better no buildings than no access.The area that the school wants is the key area of interest and landscaped."When did you last look round the inside of the small mansion?

Hazel Dakers ● 4486d

It's quite simple. What is the point of having a building restores and the grounds landscaped and restored if no-one i.e. the public can properly access them for 200 years?Better no buildings than no access.The area that the school wants is the key area of interest and landscaped.What is left is not significant to the same degree.Fact is whilst two councils have been fartarsing about for decades with their political ideaologies and clueless and disasterous decision making made largely by politicians with egos the size of footballs and brains the size of a creme egg some of whom who could not even be bothered to find the park on a map.Friends groups have either become obsessed with the buildings and both lots have forgotten about the rest of the park.Huge amounts of money have been mispent. The CiP saga one of them.Loads of opportunities for grants and initiatives have been missed again because of too much intellectual hypothosis and junior school politics.Now we have a proposal which is a stinker and some think this is OK ?With land grabs and offshore companies with layers of questionable ethics Only their huge financial resources is enough to arouse a love affair and marriage.Wait for the mistress to arrive on the scene.....

Michael Brandt ● 4487d

Hazel has asked me to post for her:Unfortunately the cafe will not generate sufficient income to subsidise the desired public benefits - such as a museum without a leaking roof and with proper display and with less of its treasures hidden from view due to lack of display space. That museum is an important adjunct to the education of children in both boroughs as well as a pleasure for history loving adults.If residents continue to object to some aspect of every proposal there will be no historic buildings fit enough for restoration and the landscape will never be restored to its former beauty.Even less than during the last 30 odd years do we stand a chance now of Gunnersbury's restoration totally paid for and maintained through public funding. Better 80% of the cake than none I say!

Kath Richardson ● 4487d

There is indeed, as you say, commercial activity in the Park, for instance the cafe. The crucial point is that such activity is 'ancillary to the use of the land as a public park or sports ground' (as prescribed in the covenant) for the use of the public in the Park and not for the private profit of some outside entity.Any request for a variation/modification to the covenant has got to be considered by the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber). Residents can put their case to the tribunal, without need of a barrister, and are not liable for costs whether they win or lose.

Bela Cunha ● 4487d

I feel happy that after a saga that has continued for most of the period during which I've lived in Brentford - 34 years - the Gunnersbury problem seems on its way to being belatedly resolved. It has been clear that one mansion or the other was going to need a commercial use to help fund the other. Far better that the one used commercially is that which has largely, possibly entirely, lost its internal historic architectural features, leaving the other open to the public and able to demonstrate the gracious living of the wealthiest in earlier times - as well as the kitchens in which their servants worked.I feel it's desperately sad that the two councils have been so irresponsible until recently with the consequence that both the mansions and garden buildings have deteriorated.I'm not now going to quibble over a private school occupying the small mansion and paying much needed rent. A state school would have cost the public purse more money and a social enterprise would have been unlikely to be able to pay a commercial rent. Neither is currently realistic. Hard headedness is required if Gunnersbury's best opportunity in the last 30 years is to be achieved!I really look forward to seeing Gunnersbury brought back to life.

Hazel Dakers ● 4487d

Thank you Bela. I wonder whether you read another contribution I added to another thread.Indeed if you ask the people who know its what was there originally that would have been worth saving. A single grand mansion in the Palladian style that was equivalent in importance and architecture to Chiswick House. I am led to believe anyway. And as you say it pays to come out and say what needs to be said - heresy or not. The problem as many see it is that if the councils keep their hands in their pockets and do nothing and the "investors" are dissuaded from coming in because of the covenant issues then there is this rather embarrassing stalemate where nothing happens and  we get scaffolding put up around the houses with notices saying "danger keep out - unsafe structure!!" And the only winner is the person who sold/hired out the scaffolding.There is commerce in the park already but would there be a case for more of it? If the developers don't get their hands on it under the enabling development planning loophole then how does one fund a project as big as this? Or as I said, should it be funded at all?I think that there is a legal remedy available to transfer the park into the care of trust but (a) it might be expensive and (b) there needs to be more cohesion as regards the park's future. Mayor Boris got the Royal parks into a right froth when he suggested that they "work" for their upkeep. People were harrumphing about turning them into "Theme Parks" and other ghastly ideas. The point about earning is a fair one though given that the alternative source of funding in council tax contributions is pared to the bone, the lottery needs to be paid back its billions spent on the olympics, and everyone else is very strapped. It's that dire combination that gets the developers licking their lips. So what would the preservationists the status quo group be prepared to accept in this regard? Thank you and regards

Alistair Milward ● 4487d

A Trust has long been recognised as the only sensible way forward for Gunnersbury Park, taking it away from the ownership by two Councils which has been a disaster.Alistair, you have said something which I know many people think but are afraid to say in case they are accused of being heretics: why this obsession with preserving at all costs (whatever the cost) buildings that are falling down, shut off from public access, too expensive to repair and, even if they could be repaired, no appropriate use could be found for, except what most of us want to avoid, i.e. housing? I was told a long time ago by someone who knew the subject that the Small Mansion is not even a particularly good example of its type and there's nothing inside it of note (it was painted magnolia in the 1960s). This was a rich man's folly and we now live in austere times. Labour Councils contemplating spending untold millions on piles of stones while having to make heartbreaking decisions that will throw so many people into hardship ... Labour Councils apparently falling over themselves to do a deal (any deal that will rid them of the responsibility of the Small Mansion) with millionaire tax-avoiding property developers? Is anyone so naive as to think these people are prepared to spend £6 million altruistically restoring the building out of the kindness of their own hearts, without wanting anything in return? Or is this a hard-nosed business decision, furthering their own agenda and giving them a precious foothold in the Park?To me the important thing is preserving the integrity of the Park. It is MOL, a listed Park and protected by a covenant. Small modifications have been allowed in the past after application to the Lands Tribunal, but the covenant itself has always remained in place. A Trust could run the Park. With so much development going on in the area, we need to hold on to GP, not just for us, but for those who are moving here and for future generations.Let us buck the present trend that parks (like school playing fields) are only good for building on.

Bela Cunha ● 4487d

and thank you too Michael.When I was part of the West London Free School founding group we were always hunting for sites - Ealing tried to get us interested in the Perfume Factory (office block) at Park Royal can you imagine that! Yes, getting kids on grass is absolutely critical as I said in an earlier thread. I wasn't actually making a distinction between a privately or state educated child really. It was just about The Child and how we are forcing them into schools in Industrial Estates because we haven't got anywhere else! Back in the 70s Ealing saw population decline and so sold two fantastic schools what are now the King Fahd Academy and Japanese schools. Now  I understand that they are facing a huge shortfall in 2015 primary places (as is Hounslow by the way - but apparently worse) that they rather wish they hadn't! If you look into the Acton Town Centre development that's going on right now - Magistrates courts flogged off for flats, primary school playground flogged off to pay for the last revamp and now they are thinking of flogging off the library to pay for the new revamp. Short sightedness if ever there was. Hey ho. I note that you are pro a trust body to safeguard the park as well. And if I may, I rather suspect the Councils see it as a financial burden as a whole but I take your point that behind closed doors there is probably reference made to the land as an asset.

Alistair Milward ● 4489d

Thanks Anthony, I was beginning to wonder whether it was something I'd said..!To sum up your response, if I may be so bold# Pro a single body or Trust arrangement to get around the mis/non-aligned local authority dual control# Sixth form college (state education) to relieve pressure on spaces for primary/secondary# Franchise/lease to external bodies (Kew)to enhance their own offerings (course)Excellent. It's interesting that you are extending the commercial activities of the park in these ideas - very slightly obviously. There is already PHS/Greenscene with their greenhouses and nursery; the renowned Capel Manor college; the cafe. All done sympathetically and without fanfare but we must remember - 'Revenue' isn't a dirty word! Well apart from the 'R' in HMRS. Thanks

Alistair Milward ● 4489d

I went to the same meeting about the Free School, in part because of the local buzz about using parks and allotments to build schools on.I'm none the wiser about that as the selection of secondary sites was a bit glossed over.But the preferred site is a good one and would be ideal solution for the local population boom.But they will need playing fields and Gunnersbury park is just a 12 min walk away - at Kids speed about 20. But included in the remit could be a revamp for the changing rooms and basic sports facilities. And being for all people would also not require division.I too wonder whether a trust should take control of the park. It is the politics of two boroughs that has caused such neglect. Can't ever see that changing and can't ever seem councils being trusted to protect what they see as a financial asset and not a vital amenity

Michael Brandt ● 4489d

That's a good read.I think that too much has been focused on the buildings and not enough on the rest of the park which is more dire than the mansion.In my 43 years I have never set foot in it, but played around it and at least enjoyed the grounds around it and still do.But the keeness of people to draft in QCs and the like to unpick the covenent is vandalism by people with motives far removed from protecting the park for all.I think it may well be better to have a trust run the park and rather than a load of 'friends' who seem to be bogged down with the intellectual and political mire and effectively on a choke chain by the councils, a 'Freinds' made up of volunteers with a can do attitude to tackle the less difficult and specialist aspects of caring for the park.Conservation volunteers have been doing stuff like this for years.Kew is short of space for it's now world renowned horiticultural courses.Why not a short franchise lease with them.I went to a meeting for a free school last night. It highlighted the shortage of spaces in existing schools.So why not move the sixth form of a school to the mansion? Sixth formers are over 16, and don't need a playground or the kind of security that in 16s need.In fact Gunnersbury school left it's sixth form at the Gunnersbury site for some time, then swapped it to the 1st and 2nd years, and I think reverted to the 6th form until the Ride site was able to accomodate the whole school.It worked very well - I was there at both sites.Gunnersbury park had the all important sports facility and the 6th form requirements were less then for the lower school. That would free up space for 11-16 year olds without having to find sites to build on at great cost.But at least it is for ordinary local people and not exclusive. The park thus remains largely undivided.

Anthony Waller ● 4489d