Hounslow Council


Agenda, decisions and minutes

Venue: Council Chamber, Civic Centre, Lampton Road, Hounslow. View directions

Contact: Carol Stiles Tel: 020 8583 2066 or email:  carol.stiles@hounslow.gov.uk 

Note: Please note because of problems with access to the Small Mansion during ongoing works the meeting venue has been moved to Hounslow Civic Centre 

Items
No. Item

9.

Apologies for absence, declarations of interest or any other communications from Members

Decision:

The Chair had been delayed. The Vice Chair opened the meeting at 6.45 p.m.

 

Apologies had been received from Councillor Joanna Dabrowska and Councillor Adrian Lee.

 

There were no declarations of interest and no other communications from members.

Minutes:

As the Small Mansion was inaccessible due to the commencement of works in the Park, the venue had been changed at short notice to the Civic Centre, LB Hounslow. This had caused difficulties for some members.

 

The Chair, Councillor Yvonne Johnson, had been delayed. The Vice Chair, Councillor Mel Collins, opened the meeting at 6.45 p.m. He welcomed everyone to the Civic Centre and apologised for the need to change venue at short notice.

 

Apologies had been received from Councillor Joanna Dabrowska and Councillor Adrian Lee.

 

There were no declarations of interest and no other communications from members.

 

It was agreed to take Agenda Item 4, the update on the Mela, as the first item, pending the arrival of the Chair.

10.

Minutes of the meeting held on 5 June 2015 pdf icon PDF 86 KB

Decision:

The minutes of the meeting held on 5 June 2015 were confirmed.

 

There was one matter arising:

 

Item 3 – Minutes – page 1, bullet point 2 – Sarah Ruane confirmed that arrangements were being made between James Wisdom and Jonathan Kirby for Mr Wisdom to receive a redacted disc of the master plan submission to the Heritage Lottery Fund and to sign the confidentiality document.

Minutes:

The minutes of the meeting held on 5 June 2015 were confirmed.

 

There was one matter arising:

 

Item 3 – Minutes – page 1, bullet point 2 – Sarah Ruane confirmed that arrangements were being made between James Wisdom and Jonathan Kirby for Mr Wisdom to receive a redacted disc of the master plan submission to the Heritage Lottery Fund and to sign the confidentiality document.

11.

Mela pdf icon PDF 50 KB

Decision:

Members noted the verbal update on the Mela. In discussion it was suggested:

 

  • It would be helpful to have a programme of events and locations with the ticket as it was difficult to locate all venues around the site.
  • It would be useful to review the location of the box office for the Mela site and signposting and directions to the entrance.
  • One area of growth and marketing to pursue might be the food element of the Mela.
  • The Mela had again clashed with the Brentford Festival in Blondin Park and it would be helpful to continue discussion with the Friends of Boston Manor Park about the date.
  • Although it was recognised that the postal address was Acton, it would have been helpful if the press release had reflected that the park was predominantly in Brentford.

 

Minutes:

See the report – Agenda Item 4.

 

Sarah Ruane, LB Hounslow, reported a successful Mela with over 15,000 people attending. The event had included a range of music and stalls, with national and international performers. A full report and development plan would be compiled by the company funded by the Arts Council.

 

Chris Bunting, LB Ealing, advised that the difficulties this year arose from the fact that ticket charges had been introduced. This had been a pilot to look for a more sustainable future for the event. They had been 4,000 tickets short of the target for sales so the report from the consultants in November would guide what would happen in the future and guide the Business Plan for the event for the next five years. On the positive side, the weather had been very good, as were the fireworks. It was disappointing that there had been fewer attending than in previous years but there were examples in introducing charges where numbers had dropped off for one year but built up over time. It was important to note that the Councils and stakeholders could not keep under-writing losses.

 

James Wisdom, Co-opted Member, spoke very positively of the event. He had expected numbers to be lower but was pleased to see as many attending as there had been. The atmosphere was very good, as in previous years. One thing he noticed was the lack of any document or programme as people came through the turnstiles to indicate the participants and where things were. He felt that a programme should go with the ticket.

 

Chris Bunting noted the comments but pointed out that a programme would add to the price of entry. Screens by the stages showed the running order. However, he would report back to the production company as producing a programme might be possible via sponsorship. In respect of the atmosphere, he noted that the offer was largely the same as previous years.

 

James Wisdom also noted that the Mela was marketed as a music event but he felt that there was scope to publicise the importance of the food offer as a bridge between communities and cultures. He felt that there was scope to grow the event in a culinary direction.

 

Councillor Myra Savin agreed that it had been a lovely day, cheerful and welcoming, although perhaps not as good as the previous year. However, she had found the directions from the Brentford side of the Park to the entrances to the event very unclear and had been directed the wrong way.

 

Chris Bunting agreed that the appropriateness of the location of the box office had been questioned, although it was difficult to signpost over 200 yards of green space.

 

Councillor Savin also noted that the event clashed with the Festival in Blondin Park. Chris Bunting advised that this was the third year this had happened. The Brentford Festival had seen an increase of 2,000 on the back of the charge for the Mela. There was continued  ...  view the full minutes text for item 11.

12.

Sports Hub - verbal update pdf icon PDF 237 KB

Frequently asked questions document attached.

Decision:

Members noted the update on the Sports Hub development.

 

The following points were raised in discussion:

 

  • Sarah Ruane would check with the Transport team how the plans for access for the Sports Hub would fit with existing plans for a cycle hub.  
  • Members had the opportunity in respect of the planning application to suggest ideas and location for physical activities in the borough – outdoor gym, trim trail etc.
  • Members sought assurance that the sports and activities provision would meet the needs of all sections of the community. It was confirmed that there would be an inclusive approach in respect of disability and female orientation but pointed out that this had not been clear in the public meetings.

Minutes:

See the Frequently Asked Questions document – Agenda Item 3.

 

The Chair, Councillor Yvonne Johnson, had arrived during discussion of the previous item and now took the Chair.

 

Marianne Boyle, Major Projects Service Manager for Sports and Leisure Activity, LB Hounslow, introduced the update on the Sports Hub phase of the development. She explained she would give the background and then take questions.

 

Ms Boyle explained that Gunnersbury Park offered one of the largest sporting facilities in London in the potential extent of sports pitches. This was important for both boroughs and both boroughs had endorsed the sports and leisure facilities. Borough profiles showed an ageing population, issues of health and obesity and catchments of deprivation. There was low participation in physical activities in both boroughs. So the development provided an opportunity for improvement. Education was also important and there was work with the Brentford Community Sports Trust to develop coaching via NVQ and BTEC qualifications. A community programme would include a disability sports focus, social inclusion, older adults activities, clubs, sports for young people and schools, employment, play and development and a focus on women and girls.

 

Proposals identified in the Cabinet report included two options. The first was for a Sports Hall and Studio, including a café and outdoor pitches. The cost was £5m. The second option at a higher cost of £8 ½ m included a five court Sports Hall. The planning application had been submitted for the second option and the funding strategy for this was on track. Some funding had been agreed by the Cabinet of both boroughs. Bids had been solicited from Sports England, the Football Foundation, the Lawn Tennis Association, the London Marathon Charity Trust and cricket authorities. Other bids were pending. The planning application was expected to be determined by the January Planning Committee. The application was currently out to consultation with responses expected by the end of October.

 

The Chair thanked Marianne Boyle for the presentation and invited questions.

 

Councillor Mel Collins noted that the previous week there had been a major fire in the existing cricket pavilion. He asked whether the pavilion had been gutted or could still be used. On the general proposals, he expressed the view that this was an exciting prospect if all the funding bids came to fruition. He had two concerns. Firstly, he asked about access after dark and access for emergency vehicles to the sports pitches or for spectators. Secondly, he wished to understand how these proposals fitted with the existing plans for the cycle hub.

 

In reply Marianne Boyle explained that the cricket pavilion had been burnt to the ground, could not be used and would need to be removed. It was confirmed that the incident was subject to police investigation. Councillor Savin referred to similar problems in Boston Manor Park and stressed the importance of considering site security in respect of the sports hub.

 

Ms Boyle replied that access and security plans included full CCTV and facilities management on site. The sports  ...  view the full minutes text for item 12.

13.

Project Update pdf icon PDF 594 KB

Decision:

Members noted the update.

 

Members noted the change of contractor had delayed the project by two months so the completion date was now 14 September 2017.

 

Members noted the arrangements for the Community Interest Company (CIC), the veto invested in the two borough Directors and concerns about the power invested in them. Members asked that the report and the voting system should be looked at and a response given to the Panel.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Minutes:

See the  Progress Report - Agenda Item 5

 

Bridget Gregory, LB Ealing, introduced the report and explained that the main contractor had been appointed since the last meeting. The first company selected had gone into administration so the reserve tenderer, Quinn London Limited, had been confirmed and started on site. Quinn had also appointed some key personnel from the original company to work on the site. The situation with the change of contractor had led to a two month delay so the completion date was now 14 September 2017. A Letter of Intent had been issued in order to commence enabling works, prior to the contract being signed. Work had started on 14 September 2015. The site had been set up with hoardings by the main gate in Popes Lane, which was closed off.

 

The works were going well. There would be a clearer idea of the work needed and the cost to be finalised by March 2016. The place designated for the storage of the carriages fell through at the last minute but an alternative had been found at Crown Fine Arts in Stockwell, which was an excellent environment for the carriages. All the collection had been decanted. Purcell had been appointed to update the Conservation Management Plan.

 

With regard to risks, the risk of not getting vacant possession of the Large Mansion had been high but had been achieved. The main risk now was that unanticipated work would be identified, so the project team were keeping a close eye on this. In respect of the contractor, there had been a thorough report of Quinn’s financial status, which was very good.

 

In respect of the museum development, an emergency plan was being developed, particularly in respect of items of the collection transferred to the Small Mansion. Osterley Park had been approached and were happy to agree reciprocal arrangements in respect of emergencies. Consideration was being given to pest management and environment monitoring. Twenty per cent of the collection would be returned to the Small Mansion to allow the curator to work on conservation of items. There had been quotes for works to the Small Mansion to ensure it was in good condition to hold the collection.

 

Work was proceeding on interpretation and design and all stories should be researched by the end of the year. An illustrator/script writer had been appointed. There was continued work with FW Design on wayfinding around the Park. This would be signed off in 2016. There were regular design reviews with end users so curators and education staff could identify what would work for them operationally.

 

The Development Trust had commenced fund raising, with bids to the Wolfson Foundation, the SITA Trust, the Country House Foundation and the Monument Trust. To date a grant of £75, 000 by the Country House Foundation had been agreed and the Trust were optimistic that they would hear about the other bids in the New Year. The Development Trust would play a larger role as the project moved  ...  view the full minutes text for item 13.

14.

Park Security - for discussion

Decision:

Members raised concern about current park security. The Panel asked officers to consider the concerns and to report back to the Panel with ideas for improved security at the next meeting.

Minutes:

Councillor Mel Collins introduced the item and explained that he and Councillor Myra Savin, as local ward councillors, were aware of problems with present park security. He spoke of two occasions, when there had been public meetings in the park in the evening, when the gate had been locked, members had been locked in the park and had difficulties in finding a way out in the dark. He was concerned about the ineptitude of park security. There remained holes in the fence in Lionel Road with things being dumped in the park at the junction of Lionel Road and Popes Lane. He believed that there had been problems with drug dealing and with people on bikes. He had asked for a police presence but there were problems with whether the police report was made to Ealing or Hounslow. He wished to know what had been reported in the park. He hoped that the recent incident with the Cricket Pavilion was not arson. However, he stressed the importance of improvement in security for residents and for the park, as it affected finances.

 

James Wisdom also drew attention to a new problem arising from the development works. The contractors, Quinns, had fenced off part of the park, which made it more attractive to rough sleepers. There were plenty of corners they could use and bedding was found occasionally to demonstrate this. Also with so much building work, there were stocks of building materials which were attractive to thieves. Insecure building arrangements were risky for security.

 

The Chair noted that the Panel had received a police report about a year ago. She understood that incidents of drug use would be the responsibility of the local Neighbourhood Police team. She asked officers to take away these issues to discuss with the police and asked officers to bring back ideas to the next meeting on possible ways forward.

 

Resolved:

 

Members raised concern about current park security. The Panel asked officers to consider the concerns and to report back to the Panel with ideas for improved security at the next meeting.

15.

Future of Joint Advisory Panel - for discussion

Decision:

Members wished to clarify the likely lifespan of the Panel given the changes in the timeline for the project. Members wished to ensure that the Panel would continue beyond March 2017 as the project would continue beyond that date.

Minutes:

Councillor Myra Savin and Councillor Mel Collins noted that it had been agreed by the respective Cabinets that the Gunnersbury Park Joint Advisory Panel would continue in its present form until the completion of the project.

 

However, members wished to clarify the likely lifespan of the Panel given the changes in the timeline for the project and the fact that it would not now complete in March 2017.

 

Bridget Gregory, LB Ealing, explained that the project would now end in September 2017 but the Community Interest Company (CIC) would be set up earlier. It was expected to appoint a Chief Executive by July 2016, so the Chief Executive of the CIC would be involved in business planning. She would take this point back to the Project Board.

 

The Chair noted that they would take this point back to Ealing. Her understanding was that the Panel would continue in tandem with the project. Councillor Collins understood that the Panel would remain until all developments from the project were in place and then discuss if a body would remain as a monitoring board.

 

Resolved:

 

That members wished to ensure that the Panel would continue beyond March 2017 as the project would continue beyond that date.

16.

Dates of future meetings

Future meetings have been agreed on:

 

Friday, 22 January 2016

Friday, 15 April 2016

 

At 6.30 p.m. in the Terrace Room, Small Mansion, Gunnersbury Park.

Decision:

The next meeting would be 22 January 2016 and it was confirmed that the Small Mansion would be back in use at that time.

Minutes:

The next meeting would be 22 January 2016 and it was confirmed that the Small Mansion would be back in use at that time.

17.

Urgent Business

Any business which the Chair agrees to accept on grounds of urgency.

Decision:

It was confirmed that a timeline and recommendations were being developed in respect of leases for houses in the Park.

 

 

Minutes:

Councillor Myra Savin asked what was happening to the houses in the Park. Sarah Ruane, LB Hounslow, explained that they were looking at all the leases. They would establish a timeline of what needed to be done and develop a set of recommendations. It was proposed that the leases would go to the CIC but the decision making rested with the Council before these were moved.

 

Resolved:

 

It was confirmed that a timeline and recommendations were being developed in respect of leases for houses in the Park.