Residents and environmental groups outraged as restructure goes ahead
Local residents and community groups are up in arms over the Ealing Council's scrutiny panel's upholding of a Council decision to reorganise Ealing's ranger service.
The restructure plans were first made public through an informal non-agenda question at a Hanwell Area Committee meeting, which has been labelled an effort to push this through the back door. "We only heard about this through our area committee, and the community affected by the Horsenden Farm closure will probably have to wait to read about it in the local papers," said main speaker on behalf of the Lawns and Hanwell Village Green residents’ associations Carolyn Brown.
"There has been no consultation with the affected commuities over the closure of these bases, and no feasibility study to check tht it will all work. An no impact assessment to anticipate and prepare for things that might go wrong. The council maintains that they do not need to consult on this, but I would have throught that the sheer volume of objections and outrage amongst the commuity is indicative that our parks and open spaces are close to the public's hearts, and the Council should listen," she concluded.
There has been some confusion over the actual numbers involved. The council's press office described the figures to EalingToday.co.uk:
"We are re-organising the management structure of the whole Service, including the Rangers, but losing only one member of middle management through early retirement - no Rangers are being cut," said the spokesperson. "We are considering operating from two bases around the borough rather than four, but there will be no change to the work the rangers do across the borough.
But according to Carolyn this picture is misleading. "There were 24 rangers when this council took power," she said. "They got rid of four earlier this year. Now there are supposed to be 20 but there are only 16 or 17 actually in position and we couldn't get any commitment that they would fill those free positions to bring it up to the full quota. And the fact of the matter is that we are losing two of the four senior rangers, with the most expeience, across the borough."
The rationale behind the restructure is efficiency and cost cutting and the opposition groups agree that changes to the service are indeed necessary. "We definitely need changes," said Carolyn. "There was old fashioned technology in place, there were poor directives from Perceval house. But that's not the rangers fault. We do need to tighten up how they're directed, but effectively we now have fewer rangers doing more paperwork, with less less hands on time.
The other thrust of the shake up is the consolidation of the four ranger bases from four to two, in Acton and Southall, giving up 'dilapidated and not-fit-for-purpose' buildings at Brent Lodge and Horseden Hill.
Chair of the Hanwell Village Green Conservation Area Residents Beryl Pankhurst again thinks the idea that the Council is simply moving from unfit buildings is misleading. "The environmental centre at Brent lodge is a listed building and one part is indeed deemed unsafe, although the part the rangers work in is perfectly sound," she said. "It was always promised that it would be done up to become structurally sound but it never happened. At Horsenden Hill there was going to be a cafe and it was going to be opened up to children for environmental education but again it hasn't happened. The council will have decided to sell them because they're most commercially viable ones to sell on."
The Council holds that "although Rangers may not be permanently based at Brent Lodge and Horsenden Hill, there will be no changes to the amount of patrols or conservation work done in the parks in those areas."
But residents are dubious, arguing that a more limited ranger presence in the borough's parks could lead to an increase in crime, and more nti-social behaviour. "I don't see a positive future for the park with rangers coming in from Acton and Southall because you need to be there, to have a link with the area," said Beryl, but for her the most important area of the rangers work is in conservation and this is what she fears will suffer.
"When the rangers were introduced the main thrust of their work was supposed to be to do conservation work in order to extend and increase biodiversity," she said. "There was the promotion to privatise various activities but the conservation work always remained in-house.
Now increasingly they have moved away, to more bureaucratic activities, large parts of their time sat at computers filling in forms. Biodiversity plans have not been forthcoming, which is supposed to be part of their work. Their numbers have been cut more and more and demand for patrolling made more and more.
Beryl summed up: "It's just so mean. They aren't cutting high priced people. Rangers are paid a pittance. And these are people who care, who believe in it. I know the authority is in financial difficulties. But selling the family silver doesn't solve the problem."
October 19, 2007