Forum Topic

Gunnersbury Park Festival Debacle

I didn't have tickets for Lenny Kravitz nor was I going to any of the other festivals in Gunnersbury Park this year but I still think it is catastrophic that they are all going to be called off this year.I can hear music from the park and sometimes it is quite load but I do appreciate that the massive improvements we have seen are down to increased revenue being generated by events like these. I think it is a good deal that we get a nicer park at the cost of a bit of noise and disruption a few days a year (noise and disruption caused generally by people having a nice time).I understand your attitude might be different if you live very close to the park but you more than anyone benefit from its recovery. Councils are much more financially constrained than they used to be and, if the CIC collapses, the park may slip into dilapidation quicker than you think.

Mark Evans ● 120d17 Comments

Let's have it straight..... the first concern of the CIC is the CIC.There's some proper big salaries being bandied about and these take first dibs BEFORE any monies get allocated to the actual park.So no prizes for guessing why the CIC are doing whatever they can to get as many events as possible via the Private sector in this PUBLIC park.You mention "a few days a year" - if only that was the case.The loss of amenity space to the public will be more than 3 months when you take in set up and break down days for each event. Why am I paying my Council Tax if I can't use an amenity on my doorstep?The noise doesn't bother me too much at all but I am a few roads away.What is wrong is that the park was never used for these large scale events before and this is being imposed on people for private gain first and the spin off benefits do not outweigh the stress, disruption and loss of use that many will feel.If the park had a long history of 50,000 people attending concerts and festivals then fair enough but it doesn't so people are rightly losing faith in due process or being represented by their elected officials.If I move in next to a pub then I have no right to complain about noisy drinkers; but if I'm living next to a peaceful bit of open land and it's snatched away from me for a quarter to a third of the year (when the weather is at it's best) and my life is disrupted so ££££'s can be made then I think that is wrong.It is exactly the same with Boston Manor Park and it's J2 etc festivals.Everyone can see from the most recent update on the news page that this is going to be railroaded through.I just hope people eventually wake up to how they are being shafted and take action.

Colin Goodman ● 15d

Excellent posting Mr Goodman, I wholeheartedly agree with you, especially re The CIC Fat Cats.Unfortunately, most residents are blissfully unaware and ignorance is bliss......

Rosco White ● 15d

Well said, Colin. The biggest problem is with uncontrolled parking in nearby streets causing traffic jams. The E3 bus is often put on diversion at short notice because it can't get past the cars parked nose-to-tail on Popes Lane.

Susan Kelly ● 15d

How much are these so-called 'CIC fat cats' actually paid?

Mark Evans ● 15d

Perplexity AI - Gunnersbury CIC is Gunnersbury Estate (2026) CIC, the trading subsidiary of the Gunnersbury Museum and Park Development Trust. I cannot find publicly disclosed, named salaries for its five highest-paid executives.What is disclosedThe latest publicly available audited group accounts, for the year ended 31 March 2025, disclose only an aggregate figure: employee benefits for the organisation’s key management personnel totalled £352,269 (including employer pension contributions and employer National Insurance), up from £304,825 in 2024. They do not allocate this total by person or publish a ranked “top five” list.The same report says most staff transferred from the CIC to the charitable Trust on 31 March 2025, while commercial-activity employees remained with the CIC. This further means the figure is group-level/organisation-level context, not necessarily pay earned solely from the CIC payroll.Why individual figures are unavailableThe CIC’s Companies House accounts are filed under the small-company regime, and such accounts generally do not require public disclosure of individual executive pay. Its latest Companies House filing shown is accounts to 31 March 2024; the more detailed 2024/25 audited accounts sit in the Trust’s charity filing.The report identifies a CIC board of seven directors, five of whom also serve as Trust trustees, but it does not state that those directors are paid, nor provide director-by-director remuneration

Rosco White ● 15d

Couple of days until the sham revised meeting - does anyone think common sense and the good of local residents will prevail?No chance.Let's just remember YOUR elected council officials will be voting for the park to be out of regular use to the public for 32% of the year.The vast majority of that time will be when locals and visitors would want to use it the most, ie the summer.Still... big business, money, money, money, upkeep, vanity projects, money, money, money.... my days.

Colin Goodman ● 10d

These numbers are very far from proving widespread 'fat cat' pay at the CIC.

Mark Evans ● 10d

Be interesting to know how many hours they put in a month?And that always hidden/downplayed but very lucrative little item ........ Expenses!

Rosco White ● 10d

I never called them "fat cats" but as noted above it's all relative and should be looked at pro-rataThe overall (AI as well so who knows) figure is/was £352k.How is that chopped up?What is involved for that?I heard the leader of the CIC had a gross o/all take home one year of circa £200kNow, that could be justified if said person is working like a Trojan, delivering impeccable service and best public amenity park in London.I simply don't know.What I do know is the CIC is a set up that never existed before and is yet more LA out sourcing with little control.If anyone thinks the LA is then going to put constraints on these people then I have a bridge I can sell you... send me your details.Hearing today a "temporary" theatre may well be built in Walpole Park for 3 years -- just what are we paying our Council Taxes for if these PUBLIC spaces are being taken away from us?????????

Colin Goodman ● 9d

The issue with CICs is the opaqueness of their management structure and operations. Despite running public facilities there is very little in the way of scrutiny in how they go about things. This was something a friend of mine, along with other people, raised when the Gunnersbury model was first mooted years ago. Pretty much everything they said would happen has happened, with more to come.While it’s fine to increase incomes for the park it has been at the expense of certain sectors who traditionally used it. For example , the bowls club was closed down in favour of a pricey mini golf facility. The underlying hope is that people simply forget about what went before.Like a lot of parks the councils allowed Gunnersbury to decline rapidly. It was very well used at weekends for football matches but the facilities were Third World, if not worse. So much so that clubs simply voted with their feet and found venues elsewhere. Another income stream dried up.Managed decline is a favourite tactic of local authorities, who usually have an ulterior motive involving repurposing facilities. It’s happened in Brentford where Hounslow allowed the Watermans centre to deteriorate and just ignored what was obvious to many, that investing and promoting the centre would improve patronage and create a buzz. Now there’s nothing there at all.But then if you let idiots run things you get idiotic decisions.

Simon Hayes ● 9d

While your point about the lack of transparency of the CIC structure is valid, there is zero evidence presented that revenues and grants that go into the company are being unduly taken up by salaries. Regular users of the park will seen the transformation over the past decade or so and recognise that part of the credit for this must go to the hard work and expertise of the people running it. The historic buildings are usable again, the grounds are immeasurably improved, sporting activities which had more or less disappeared are now meaning the park is so crowded at the weekends that it is difficult to park (even though parking charges have been introduced). While it is not right that we don't get more oversight into what the people who have achieved this are paid, it is clear they deserved to be well renumerated. It must be recognised that grants and council support is going to fall which means that the momentum of improvement will stall unless revenues can be increased. I very much hope Hounslow Council's planning committee recognises this later today and approves what seems to me a reasonable compromise between the needs of the park and the needs of residents.

Gordon Southwell ● 8d

They will undoubtedly approve it.I’m not saying there haven’t been improvements to the park, which there obviously have been, but the state is was allowed to slide into for years before shouldn’t have been permitted. And before you leap to the ‘cuts to council funding’ argument, the lack of maintenance in Gunnersbury dates back to the 1990s, if not before.Exactly the same happened with Warren Farm, another well used sports venue. It just happened that some cunning fellows at the council had other plans for that site, so allowing it to rot suited the purpose.The councils have a duty to maintain public buildings and open spaces. It shouldn’t be the case that they plead poverty simply because they haven’t spent their allocated budgets doing so. Ealing Town Hall had a major renovation about a decade ago. Then a short time later we were told it was unfit for use and a hotel on the site was the only way to save it. When asked for details of what defects were so severe that the building had to be abandoned the council couldn’t provide any. Isn’t that strange?

Simon Hayes ● 8d

Your points are very valid Mr Hayes, particularly those concerning our trustworthy, Lovely Council - "When asked for details of what defects were so severe that the building had to be abandoned the council couldn’t provide any. Isn’t that strange?". 🤣

Rosco White ● 8d

Anyone know the outcome of today’s committee?I don’t know why I’m asking but I’ve yet to see a shamStatement on it

Colin Goodman ● 7d

Answering my own question - the loss of most of Gunnersbury Park to the local residents for 115 days a year (the days most likely to be fine weather) has been confirmed.I’m shocked I tell you - shocked to my core.Not.No doubt this was carefully considered with absolutely no influence on the decision in respect of corporate gain over the covenanted use of the land for free by local residents.For those of you living directly next to the park my sympathy and commiserationsTHESE PEOPLE IN POWER DO NOT REPRESENT YOU

Colin Goodman ● 7d

I was at yesterday's meeting, where the expected result ensued because money trumps everything. Every opportunity to put obstacles in the way of residents and other objectors had been used, everything skewed in favour of the CIC.Decisions had been made against all the evidence supplied by residents, emails of complaints were minimised and dismissed. The planning officer did not advise which charities, schools, businesses and police officers objected, including the nation-wide charity CPRE which ran a campaign. At yesterday's meeting,residents were not allowed to speak, including councillors.  Again no transparency re what the CIC's expenses are or where the festival money goes was offered. There was no mention of the 7000 hours of free labour given in a year by the Ministry of Justice's Community Payback Scheme for painting and gardening. All objections regarding ecological damage and harm to children growing up for the next 5 years with the cumulative effect of 4 months a year of all the damaging consequences of festivals. And why has planning accepted the noise level of 88dbs when Hyde Park manages fine with 65dbs? Festivalgoers are being told to wear earplugs to prevent damage to their hearing. Why not simply have lower sound limits?The planning committee say residents are safeguarded because there are lots of conditions the CIC have to comply with. All that will happen is what's happened in the past:the conditions will be ignored, there will be no monitoring, complaints phone numbers will be overwhelmed and not answered, numbers of complaints will be misreported,etc.etc.I used to live by the park so I know the reality of living with festivals.I feel for my friends who are going to be unable to use the park or sit in their gardens, open their windows or invite friends round and will have to endure intolerable conditions for the next five years.Believe me, if you haven't lived there, you have no idea of what the reality is truly like.

Maria Isabel Cunha ● 7d

It's worse than a travesty, it's criminal.And you are bang on regarding "enforcing" the Conditions, absolutely FA will happen I can tell you for free.I will say it until I am blue in the face, use your vote wisely and boot these Communist Cretins into touch at the next local elections.And have a quiet educating word with the clueless who keep voting them back in.

Rosco White ● 7d