Forum Topic

One can but hope that the new sports centre in Gunnersbury Park burns down too- Gunnersbury Feedback

Gunnersbury Park was established as a place of recreation for the people of Ealing not as a charitable/non-profit organisation for the paying of Sir Somebody-or-other's extortionate salary for running it. It is bounded by three council estates, what did the trustees directors or whoever think was going to happen when then tried to create an haute-cuisine dining experience that charged three times as much as the affordable -public service' (and much loved) cafe did? If they ever catch whoever torched this travesty of public trust that is the new restaurant I hope to contribute to their defence fund, they performed a public service. I can only hope that a similar 'act-of-God' strikes the new sports centre that is designed to provide revenue to fund the salaries of charity/non-profit liggers and not to provide value recreation to local, and often disadvantaged local residents. So much for the 'Gunnersbury Park Historic Buildings Survey ExtendedYour views on uses for small mansion and stables wanted' article on today's Ealing Today, there is plenty of feedback, albeit in the form of arson, it is just that nobody is listening. Endless input to local councillors who view it as more important (and put in more effort) to preserve the operation of their favourite late-night drug-dealing drinking joints than to preserve a useful and accessible public space and facility

Mark Julian Raymond ● 1766d7 Comments

The treatment that Ealing Council colluded with against the Cafe owners was truly diabolical.All the statements that this council has put out about how they champion equality and yet were prejudiced to the degree of perversion against a small local business.A similar attitude exists towards residents in not properly consulting and regarding themselves as Lords and Masters and not the servants of local taxpayers.These people should take a long hard look at themselves before pontificating such hypocrisy.

Raymond Havelock ● 1766d

Peter, I missed the whole thing about the Bunny Park Cafe, probably because the Bunny Park is a little too far for me to access easily, and it saddens me to see that there has been a third incidence of affordability and access and service sacrificed for revenue generation. It still amazes me that the Hertitage Lottery funded the ugly concrete pill-box style bunker that is Soane's Kitchen with its overpriced menu compared to the previous 'open air' cafe that it replaced. There was definitely no concrete bunker in the middle of the Soane's vegetable garden a couple of hundred years ago, and the rose garden that was grubbed-up to build this carbuncle was of historial importance in itself having been there for a hundred or so years and having won many awards in that time. What is more, that rose garden was the designated council garden-of-rest for the scattering of the ashes of thousands of people over that time period. If you can built a concrete bunker with no historical precedent using Heritage Lottery money you can certainly unlock the gates in front of the manor, the pathetic excuse given by the people running it that the gates are locked and unused because they were not there during Soane's time clearly does not hold water if a historic travesty like the Soane's Kitchen concrete bunker is allowed to be built and operate.It is noteworthy that both the Gunnersbury Park Cafe and the Walpole Park Cafe (a.k.a. Soane's Kitchen) appear to be in their second iterations of management, the first contracted operators having failed financially, and the latest incumbents providing even less public service than the original ones. What a complete Fubar.

Mark Julian Raymond ● 1766d

The bunny park, walpole park and gunnersbury all lost well loved independent cafes. This has happened all over the country. the independents don't have the resources to go through the process. so the councils all discriminate against small local businesses. this happens not just for cafes but other services as well.

Peter Chadburn ● 1766d

Raymond,It is not just the state of the paths in Gunnersbury Oark, it is the perpetually-dwindling number of park benches/seats and bins that are so representative of how appallingly the whole facility is being managed. More effort goes into producing and marketing poor trite vanity-published (but allegedly revenue-gnerating) booklets about the Gunnersbury Park then in looking after basic amenities like paths, benches and bins

Mark Julian Raymond ● 1766d

I don't think I would go that far, but do think they have got their priorities wrong and the salaries and costs for staff are excessive for what they do. But that's common for a lot of these sorts of set ups.A sports hall that is over elaborate yet footpaths that remain unusable for almost everyone from Joggers to elderly trying to walk rather than drive!The same can be said for Pitzhanger Manor. The gates to Walpole Park remain firmly locked. Gates that allowed for generations completely safe off road access, gates that were installed as part of the town war memorial to welcome citizens into the Park.  Now controlled for the exclusivity of the Manor. The operators seem to have forgotten that it's a Public Place in a Public park funded by the Public one way or another. The salaries for what they do are excessive and the actual demographic appeal limited and patronising in it's execution.Now changes are to made made to the Mattock Lane entrance, again at taxpayers expense - purely to reduce the problems caused by closing the main entrance to suit an intellectual whim.For the price of a tiny padlock key, this can all be made safe and a far better entrance for all those who have paid through lottery tickets and taxes.Re-open the Memorial gates to Walpole Park and stop this highbrow them and us nonsense.

Raymond Havelock ● 1766d

Susan,Yup! I sure did get out of bed on the wrong side today.But I would like to shake the hand of whoever dealt with the snooty, overpriced, gouging, cafe

Mark Julian Raymond ● 1766d

Get out of bed the wrong side this morning, Mark?

Susan Kelly ● 1766d