Having listened to (hopefully!) all the issues raised on internet forums and meetings, visited the museum the week before last, and then spoken to Richard Gill and James Wisdom here is a summary of my views and top concerns….

The proposals
The work of the two Councils over the past year is to be broadly welcomed. After decades of inaction a comprehensive vision for the park has been brought together by nationally recognised consultants, backed up by the local appointed Development Manager.

However, along with my local colleagues Joseph Bourke and Mona Naqvi – and Ealing Lib Dems – I am supporting residents’ fight against plans to sell off a corner of Gunnersbury Park. We recognise the need to invest substantially in the park and museum, which attracts almost 40,000 visitors, including school children, each year. At the moment the local history collection is being damaged when it rains by leaking roofs. However we do not accept that the loss of one corner of the park to housing can be the only way to raise the necessary capital receipt for investment back into the house and park.

This is why – given the limited funds of both Ealing and Hounslow Councils – we are supporting local residents’ calls for the value of Carville Park North to be explored as an alternative way of raising the £10m+ capital funds that are needed (see below), along with other revenue streams and/or prudential borrowing. We believe selling off this green space would be the lesser of two evils if no other funding can be identified.

Flaws in consultation
I think there is little to be gained by pursuing the flaws in the consultation process much longer. Yes, it was not very well constructed, but what matters now are deliverable ideas that will improve on the proposals. The flaws in the consultation must not become an excuse for inaction as there has been too much prevarication over Gunnersbury Park by both Councils for too many years. Most people to whom I speak welcome the proposals, but feel strongly that the Council’s must find alternative ways of providing the capital investment.

Achievable improvements to the current preferred option
i) Proposed land sale – the Carville Park North alternative
Carville Park North is considered a serious alternative to the corner of Gunnersbury Park for land sale/ capital receipts. This would have less impact on Gunnersbury Park, which is valued more for its trees and quality of green space. I have asked the leaders of both councils to explore this and would urge others to write to the leaders asking that CB Richard Ellis is employed on a short project to value options for developing this land instead. This needs to be done urgently so it does not delay applications to HLF/ EH.

ii) The museum
The museum at Gunnersbury contains a treasure trove of local history. The potential enjoyment by the local community and visitors is vast – as are the benefits from local people learning about our collective history. However, sadly today the sprawling collection is inappropriately housed and at constant risk of decay from leaking roofs.

Concerns I have with respect to this aspect of the proposals are:
– is the proposed store at the Stables large enough or do we need an extra 100-200 sq/m of capacity costed into the proposals?
– should the museum be renamed “The Local history museum for LBs of Ealing and Hounslow”? At the moment a lot of people don’t realise the museum houses the local history collection.
– what plans are there for exhibitions outreach? Could we have LCD exhibitions in 20 locations across the boroughs, so at the press of a button new local history exhibitions could be rotated around community halls/ libraries. Gunnersbury is a long way for someone to travel from Feltham for an introduction to the collections.

iii) Governance arrangements
There is an urgent need for clarity over governance arrangements – and these must be robust. We don’t want to end up in a position in another 30 years where there has been such chronic under investment in the parks.

So what guaranteed level of subsidy will the Councils maintain? How will reserves be built up to cover capital depreciation? How will these reserves be protected?

iv) Pitch and put
A number of people have raised concerns about the loss of this facility. Is there an alternative location in the park it could be sited that does not reduce the ‘permeability’ of the landscape in the same way? Is there another park in the area where this facility could be provided? By permeability the consultants mean access into and through this very central space is reduced by its current location.

v) Follies
Local resident Naomi Chadwick has reminded my how the southern tower/ folly by the lake in Gunnersbury Park was the stuff of childhood dreams (and sometimes nightmares!). Naomi rightly says: “At present the follies are not set off to advantage… Follies are easily appreciable art. Any child who can read a book will back me. We should free them from grime and ivy, and present them well.” This is another area whether we need to check the financing of the preferred option is sufficient. It would be a real sadness if we did not to restore (and then maintain) the park’s follies.

I would welcome further specific proposals over the next few weeks to add to and build upon this list.