Forum Topic

Unanswered Questions About Gurnell Leisure Centre Plan

As far as I can see the council seems to be arguing that they can't disclose how much of our money is being spent on this development for commercial reasons. On the face of it it looks like a facility way beyond the specifications needed and therefore way more expensive is being built and, the developer has persuaded the council to take on some of the extra cost despite the original deal requiring no council tax payer money to be used. Proceeding with this major and controversial event through lockdown just reinforces the view that the Council is far too cosy with developers and will tend to put their interests above residents.

Andy Jones ● 1781d11 Comments

I think some of the comments have been very unfair to the Tories here.  They are in a complete minority on the Council!The issue is Labour's Mason, Bell and Murray are running around thinking they are actually property developers.  The way they dressed up with their best suits (when I hardly see them wear to meet Sadiq Khan at that scheme in Hayes or wherever was nauseating.The underpinning for completely ruining our Borough with their hideous schemes that Peter Mason I believe with his private industry hat on consults on - is that  they need to match Sadiq Khan's housing target and his poorly though through 'draft' London plan.To bring Tories into this is poor form - Labour has a huge majority in Ealing and should be making this the best Borough in London, they do their best to make it miserable for everyone.

Steve Young ● 1775d

That would be in the Town Hall, staffed by the woefully inadequate councillors.

Simon Hayes ● 1777d

Not to mention where to put the next woefully inadequate Covid 23 testing centre.

Raymond Havelock ● 1777d

D’oh. We’re supposed to cycle there don’t you know. That’ll be nice in mid-winter.

Simon Hayes ● 1777d

That swimming pool looks very similar to the intently dated and third rate Fountain Pool in Brentford, Barely 30 years old and duff from day one.And a pool with no car parking?  Really useful for such a big borough with below average transport links.

Raymond Havelock ● 1777d

Gurnell is on Metropolitan Open Land. This is what the Mayor’s office says about developing such areas: https://www.london.gov.uk/what-we-do/planning/london-plan/current-london-plan/london-plan-chapter-seven-londons-living-spac-19

Simon Hayes ● 1780d

Agree about the local Tories. Many of them appear to regard the job of councillor as something they need on their CV to progress to a better role in the party so being in permanent opposition is a bit of a bonus.  Andrew Steed of the Liberal Democrats has worked hard for residents objecting to a development that overlooked them in Acton.The revolving door between local councillors and agencies representing developers has been well covered in the past by Private Eye and does mean that a lot of these deals have a whiff of Clay Davies about them. I think if you spoke to any councillor involved in housing they would assure you that their main concern was to boost the amount of affordable housing in the borough  but my view it is these targets themselves that are corrupting the system. Poor quality developments are being forced through in order to get to a high number of qualifying housing units however I suspect hardly any of them are affordable in the sense that a layperson would understand the word. A marginal discount to the market price of a very overpriced flat means that the buyer is still paying a high sum and would need to be on a high salary.What we don't see and should be seeing is data on the average price that affordable properties in each development were actually sold at. I believe that would show that the overwhelming majority of these flats are going to people who are relatively well-off.

Andy Jones ● 1781d

The alternatives have to be taken into account. The Liberal Democrats appear to be onboard with the drive for more development and with the exception of Cllrs Millican and Dabrowska the Tories seem to be uninterested in what is happening and either have a job elsewhere or are looking for one.The leisure centre will be built first as a condition of the scheme. Even a council as compromised as Ealing seems to be currently can't renege on that. The question should be rather how much of it is being paid for by the developer and how much by us. The opacity of all this is concerning. As soon as projects are in the multi-million pound bracket the potential for the public interest to be subjugated to commercial interests becomes so much greater. The risks of this grow exponentially if there is no oversight or transparency. Personally I don't believe anyone at the council is corrupt but I suspect that both officers and councillors have been seduced into believing they are serving the public interest by naively believing everything they are being told in slick presentations by savvy business people who probably flatter them at the same time. At the back of their mind they probably realise what is happening hence their desire that as few people as possible get to hear of the plans and their avoidance of proper scrutiny.

Gordon Southwell ● 1781d

Local Labour voters, sixth request by me on here, please post and justify this shower that you have returned to office, with an increased majority, and have foisted on us for four more years.We'd all LOVE to know your reasoning.I (We) don't thank you.

Rosco White ● 1781d

Will end up a stitch up just like Richmond Ice Rink and more recently Brentford's Fountain Centre replacement.And all the same faces in the mix for the latter

Raymond Havelock ● 1781d

It’s a done deal. This has been hatched between council and developers for a long time. Now the planning committee effectively meets behind closed doors this will be waved through without any problem.I expect the last thing to be built will be the leisure centre itself, much like Ealing’s long awaited cinema.

Simon Hayes ● 1781d