Forum Topic

The Numpties of Gunnersbury Park

So rather than easily fix the southern  footpaths, they throw taxpayers money at a building with no dedicated purpose?Which of course will mean that it will end up being unsuitable for any possible purpose and thus require additional expenditures to be adapted to any future use.This management, board and trusteeship lot are an utter crowd of self indulgent airheads with a deluded and cavalier approach to other people's money. No doubt this won't be the case when it comes to their own money or incomes.Why this catalogue of questionable and anti local ethics has not been called in properly by LBH and LBE is very questionable.  Probably because too many at both are also in the thick of it..It is verging on scandalous.It is after all, a Public Park bought cheaply by and for the local populous. Not a private estate.

Raymond Havelock ● 1264d4 Comments

They also received £480K from Historic England. I would guess Historic England specified this money for the building and not for footpaths.

Terry Freestone ● 1262d

Take a look at just how much funding the CIC has received and  no accountability of where it has gone.Then how the park managed for the previous 40 years with virtually no funding at all other than basic maintenance.But had a raft of low cost amenities for all ages.The Small Mansion is receiving stabilising works ( again) from what was supposed to be local community enhancement funding from the DoT for the areas affected by the A4/M4 through Brentford.No other local entity got a look in.

Raymond Havelock ● 1262d

The mismanagement of this public resource it's very well documented by Gunnersbury Friends and also on the dedicated Facebook group. It is a litany of failure, failure to engage with park users,self-aggrandisement and overpaying for mediocre performance. Objectively, any criticism is well justified.

N V Brooks ● 1263d

Are you referring to the Small Mansion? If so it is highly likely that they have only been able to get partial funding for the restoration which will at least provide a platform for helping it to be brought fully back into use and prevent further deterioration. It may be that the pots of money that are available to do this are not available for footpath maintenance. While I'd agree there have been deficiencies in the way the park has been managed, particularly in regards to the bowling green and Putt in the Park I see no justification for your rather intemperate attack on management.

Gordon Southwell ● 1263d