Councillors vote for 19 live event days at Gunnersbury Park every year for the next five years

As well as maintenance for the grounds, the CIC is responsible for Gunnersbury Park Museum and its archives. Photograph Juliet McDonald

Hounslow Council’s planning committee approves The Gunnersbury Park and Museum Development Trust’s latest proposal leaving residents angry and festival goers jubilant

In a packed room, 12 councillors faced rows of angry residents who have repeatedly expressed their growing mistrust of a planning process that they describe as a ‘procedural obstacle course’.

The unease was heightened because tonight’s decision was a deferral of 6 August’s highly divisive proposal and – in this scenario, having make their case at the previous meeting – no opponent or councillor was allowed to speak against.

The revised planning application P/2025/3274, presented to the committee, allows the CIC for the park to host large-scale live events for the next five years, reducing the number of live event days from the 22 days the Trust initially applied for, to 19 and construction days to 115.

Noise levels, the size of events and concerns such as transparency of finances were not addressed in the ‘Case for Revised Proposal’.

The issues in this proposal are complex and previously, on 6 August, kept the applicant, opponents and the committee in discussion for nearly four hours.

At that meeting, the Gunnersbury Museum and Park Development Trust made the case that they had no choice but to raise money by hosting commercial events because, from 2028, it is the intention of the two councils who own the park – Hounslow and Ealing – to withdraw their funding.

READ MORE: Planning committee defers Gunnersbury Park festivals decision for another month

No objectors were allowed to sit in the empty desk usually reserved for those speaking to the committee

Today’s swift decision, therefore, took some by surprise. Eight councillors voted for the proposal whilst Councillors Nagi (Hounslow Heath) and De Sa (Hounslow West) voted against and Councillors Louki (Osterley and Spring Grove) and Page (Hanworth Park) abstained.

Many residents in the audience had in the last twenty-four hours – for the fourth time – expressed their disapproval in emails to councillors sitting around the table. So, when this result was announced, the disappointment was palpable but not shared by everyone.

As news broke, one festival goer told us:

“We need things for fun in West London. I’m tired of having to go to other parts of London. It brings an intrigue to the area and a new wave of people who want to move here.

“A lot of the existing entertainment caters for families and older people.”

Residents would like to see a better mix of events, but will a five-year-plan deliver? Photograph Victor Frankowski

Security and confidence for the future

In defence of today’s decision, Elizabeth Coningsby, Head of Commercial at Gunnersbury Park & Museum said:

“This will give us security and confidence to create a great programme of events with something for everyone. We feel that the amendments are proportionate to the response of the community and councillors while recognising the need for the charity to generate vital commercial income into the future.”

Councillor Joanna Biddolph (Chiswick Gunnersbury) , who has been very involved with opposition groups such as Gunnersbury Park Garden Estate Residents Association (GPGERA) was not convinced that the changes went far enough. “The revisions are minimal. Will anyone notice any difference?

“I am very disappointed with the vote, particularly on the strength of arguments from Councillors Louki and Nagi.

“The reason there was so much applause [from the audience] for these committee members was that there is a really high level of anger at not having been listened to.”

Better communication needed

One of the gravest criticisms of the CIC, by opponents, is it’s lack of transparency with its plans and finances.

A spokesperson from GPGERA said:

“While we recognise the park needs money and some well managed events can be part of that mix, full accounts should be published alongside a detailed five-year spending plan showing exactly where the money is going.”

Marie Rabouhans, chair of West Chiswick and Gunnersbury Society (WCGS), agrees, and says that it appears Gunnersbury Park has been been abandoned by the two councils, and wants better communication going forward.

“We’ve now got five years to work out how we can get a more mixed mode of funding for this park and that begins with residents being consulted,” she said.

Local residents need to be notified

“We need to know how decisions as to the capacity and sound limits for any particular event will be recorded and notified to local residents in advance of events. Also what measures will be taken to ensure the ‘quotas’ are not exceeded.”

To that end, WCGS has requested an additional  Planning Condition that requires clear information is provided to the public in advance of each event to include the following key details: The event being held on [date] is a Band [x] event with a capacity of [xxxxx] and noise limits of [xx]. It is the [nth] Band [x] event day of [year].

WCGS also requested the Annual Monitoring Report and the Ecology Monitoring Report that are required as conditions to go to the Council, should be made publicly available.

Both of these points were taken up by Councillor Louki (Osterley and Spring Grove), who was told by Vincent Lacovara, Director of Planning and Building, and backed up by legal advisor, Jimmy Walsh, that the communication practice of the developer is not enforceable and “not reasonable as a planning condition”.

It was explained by the case officer, Jacky Leung, that reports would be available to the public, but Cllr Louki was not confident residents will find this information unless it is made easier to access.

A number of residents, who have submitted objections, were not convinced that the Trust would keep to the restrictions in its application, based on past experience.

Map of the impact of construction as observed by Lionel Road residents

Cumulative impact

Vladimir Ivic lives on Lionel Road North, immediately opposite Gunnersbury Park.

“My family and I have experienced first-hand the annual build-up, operation and dismantling of the major events held in the park over a number of years.

“I recognise that events can bring cultural benefits, attract visitors and generate income for the park, but I remain concerned that this cumulative impact of approving five consecutive summers of events has been underestimated.”

Ian Sanderson, who lives in Chiswick and whose life was taken over, in 2001, by successfully fighting amplified sound on Turnham Green Common, was horrified by tonight’s outcome:

“In my view, Hounslow Council [via the CIC], are in essence, promoting events on Gunnersbury Park which cause noise nuisance and serious disturbance to a very wide resident community.”

“They know what they are doing and the very large number of residents’ complaints supports the case. Because of a lack of creative talent, they clearly believe that the only way to raise necessary funding to increase their cash balance, is through large-scale live music events. The suffering caused to residents is hardly addressed, not to say ignored! It is a policy that is cruel and monstrous.”

Subject to a licence agreement

In its 6 August application, the CIC had adjusted the decibel levels – albeit by a small amount – and had pledged to monitor sound effectively as well as improving their complaints hotline. They also pointed out that they would be seriously penalised if in breach of their agreements, and so they say they always listen to locals.

“I think there’s a common misconception that people won’t be able to give us any feedback for five years,” said Elizabeth Coningsby.

“We will still be subject to our licence agreement with Hounslow Council and have committed to continuing an open dialogue with our community.”