Forum Topic

Phillipa Bond explained" I'm surprised that they haven't come up with a one-way system considering the different entrances and exits"Given the fuss there's been over the size of a few signs thats's very unlikely to happen. The only reason they were able to enlarge the car park at all, is because the land was formerly leased to commercial nurserymen who used it for sitingpolytunnels. Rather than it still being part of the original structure - one of the walled kitchen gardens.A while back, without thinking I rather foolishly suggested they could simply knock down the high wallon the left going in, and widen the entrance that way. Which given its probably been there 200 years, would really get some people frothing at the mouth.  There's always been a conflict surrounding Gunnersbury Park right from the start regarding the cost of its upkeep. Basically while the relevant councils were gifted it at a knockdown price by the Rothschilds, subject to restrictive covenants, and used its purchase as an opportunity to enhance the status of the area and provide a much needed  public amenity, they never really considered the long term cost. So in the first renegotiation of the covenant houses were build along the boundaries facing Popes Lane and Lionel Road North. And so it's gone on to the present day with pop concerts, expensive cafes and sports facilities, and car park charges. The only difference being possibly what was formerly a few hours work for employees of the relevant councils maybe meeting up every three months, now  requires thrusting dynamic executives on eye watering salaries, especially skilled at formulating overly optimistic business proposals. michael adams

Michael Adams ● 1959d

Unfortunately for you Paul Anita has very succinctly characterised your contributions to this forum. Your approach may get you a few likes on social media from like-minded people who follow you because you endorse their views but it doesn't really help provide practical solutions to the problems we face. If your starting point is that every car journey is unnecessary except the ones that you make, you aren't going to convince many people that you have anything worthwhile to add.I've volunteered with a sports clubs locally and have been responsible for arranging fixtures and transport to matches for both adult and kids teams. The configuration at Gunnersbury Park makes it highly likely that serious problems will emerge once a fuller calendar of games is taking place.Adult teams generally car pool as far as possible. Very few people cycle to matches because half are away fixtures and for football and rugby at least there is always a chance of getting a knock which will deprive you of your means of getting home. As there are few spectators adult teams are likely to generate less use of the car park but kids teams are different. Car pooling is arranged particularly for disadvantaged kids who don't have parents to bring them but a large number of parents want to come to games themselves so you'll get a far higher number of cars.When communicating with other clubs about match day arrangements it is expected that some guidance will be given about parking. I'd anticipate that the word will go out to avoid the car park in the grounds and park instead on local residential streets which, I think, is not controlled at the weekend. This will particularly be the case if players are getting fined while waiting in a queue to get out and their allotted time expires.The congestion won't just impact participants in matches and the problem for Gunnersbury will become that the park exists to give people an opportunity for a bit of relaxation. If getting in and out of the park proves to be a highly stressful experience, people won't come back and all the projections of rising footfall won't be met.

Francis Rowe ● 1958d

Francis, a few brick bats and mischaracterisations of my views and statements from the like-minded people on this forum who believe that a cycle lane, some new traffic restrictions to protect residential streets from thousands of rat-running cars per day and parking charges are oppressive. You can criticise me as much as you like but I remain steadfastly and unapologetically unsympathetic to the cause of car supremacists.I am afraid that there will come a time when you have no choice but to accept that cycle lanes and traffic restrictions and parking charges are the practical solutions to the problems we face. That is why they are being implemented now with cross-party support. You think that what has happened so far is bad. You even think that it might be reversible. But we are only at the beginning and I and many others will work tirelessly to implement many more practical solutions. Some may do the soft diplomacy you crave but most of the people involved in improving transport in London and locally will go with the polls and see there is little to be gained from engaging for long with the 16% or so who will always oppose. It is a misconception that consensus is required for change. Some objectors just get written off very early in the process even if they don't realise it. In business and in politics.I'm glad that you follow my social media activity. Over 200,000 views from around the world of my short video showing how delightful Devonshire Road is with the new traffic restrictions was nice I'm sure you will agree. Although I must return the compliment and acknowledge that I also enjoy your contributions to the forum and particularly your predictions. You are the Spock of this Starship - when you forecast an outcome, usually a gloomy one for active travel enthusiasts such as myself, it is inevitable that the inverse will occur. Now that is a unique talent and I am grateful that you bring it here for my enjoyment.Congratulations on the not-so-humble brag about your volunteering. You are awesome too! We all are in our unique ways.

Paul Campbell ● 1958d

Another supposed skill of dynamic thrusting executivesis spending large sums of money on publicity and pubic relations. Apparently Gunnersbury Park as such, no longer exists.  Every main entrance is now graced by a laminated plastic sign "This is Gunnersbury" or "Welcome to Gunnersbury". This is no doubt justified as a result of some expensive marketing consultant having discovered that indeed "Gunnersbury Park" was in fact the name of the large mansion itself at sometime in the past. And so nowadays "so last century!"And so wouldn't it be really exciting to rebrand the whole place as just "Gunnersbury" ? Seemingly totally oblivious to the fact that the very same thought hadalready occured to some LT underground bod in the 1970's in respect of the District Line station bearing exactly the same name. which just happens to be miles away,As to the bowls club which they're intent on closingdown. They're attempting to obliterate it completely withone of those "oh so tasteful" large plastic banners. This one reading in big letters LOVE GUNNERSBURY. To call this nauseating is an understatement. This latest "Love this", "love that", schtick which features in a lot of recent advertising. The reference to "Gunnersbury". And the suspicion, almost, that it could have been deliberately sited it there out of spite. All of which reasons to deliberately now look away.While around the corner from the hideaous sign, on your left on the way to the pond is a beautifully laid out mixed planting of various large size colourful shrubs.So at least not everyone is singing from the same song sheet.michael adams...

Michael Adams ● 1958d

Jeremy Parkinson"Ultimately, if the sports hub is a success a relocation of the car park will probably need to be considered with the north west corner a possible spot with the conversion of the existing car park into green space."The Covenant would most likely prevent them doing so.The Park was sold to the Councils by the Rothshchildssubject to the following restrictive covenent“they will not use the land and hereditaments for any purpose other than as a public park or sports ground and that the mansion houses and buildings on the said land…shall not at any time…be used except for such public purposes as may be ancillary to the use thereof as aforesaid…”http://www.brentfordtw8.com/shared/congunnsprk037.htmUnfortunately for the councils, along with the Friendsthe people most vigilant in seeing those restrictions observed are residents of the houses bordering thepark along Popes Lane and Lionel Road. There have beencourt cases in the past regarding possible breachesalong with ongoing concerns about noise from the pop concerts, film shows and latterly from the sports hub; from those residents at least.And even if the provision of a car park could be said to be ancilliary to the provision of a sports ground, and assuming that's what was meant, the residents of Popes Lane and Lionel Road could rightly object to having a car park with all the associated  pollution sited rightnext to their back gardens, as against a playing field.or sports ground as was the original intentionNot that such arguments may deter the CIC as with the councils in the past from spiffing large sums of *our money* up the wall in legal costs. In hopeless attempts at trying to defend the indefensible.michael adams

Michael Adams ● 1957d

Jeremy Parkinson suggested" From what you say the covenants wouldn't rule out the relocated car park "The houses bordering the Park along Lionel Road North and Popes Lane were built on behalf of the councils around the time of the purchases, to raise money to offset the cost, resulting in the re-negotiation of the covenant in 1926.As a result of that, and as a resident, Maria Cunha reminded the councils in 2013 (the linkwhich provided the original quote )  " As intended Lessees for 200 years, you are bound by the Restrictive Covenant. All the houses bordering the Park along Lionel Road and many of those bordering the Park along Popes Lane are legally entitled to the benefit of this covenant."http://www.brentfordtw8.com/shared/congunnsprk037.htmThis finding was subject to a Court Case. When first the councils sought to dispute the exact meaning of the covenant, and lost. And second and most notoriously, (when most people first found out about it) when the councils then attempted to deny that the residents actually owned their own homes; originally demanding to see the deeds etc. and being similarly obstructive.  It was only the perceived need for such obstructivebehaviour on the part of the councils that persuaded most people that the residents must have had a good case all along.  As supposed beneficiaries of the covenent therefore its difficult to see how the siting of a car park at the bottom of their gardens as opposed to tbe periphery of a playing field as was originally intended, being detrimental to both the amenity value and the market value of their properties can possibly further that aim. More especially as they don't benefit directly from any income generated by such activities.Without actually spelling it out, it was this I was referring to in my reference in my previous post  to the "CIC spiffing *our* money up the wall", in pursuit of unwinnable cases.michael adams

Michael Adams ● 1957d