Gunnersbury Park Resubmits Blanket Events Application

CIC wants five year consent for major events starting next year

Litter in the park after Krankbrother 2025. Picture: GPGERA

June 14, 2026

Gunnersbury Park’s management has submitted a revised application for long-term planning permission to host major outdoor events, marking the latest chapter in a fraught debate over how the estate should balance cultural programming with the concerns of nearby residents.

The new proposal — significantly scaled back from the original — comes after a year of intense scrutiny, a high-profile licensing review, and a wave of resident complaints.

The Gunnersbury Estate (2026) CIC, which manages the park on behalf of the Gunnersbury Museum and Park Development Trust, is now seeking a five-year planning consent running from January 2027 to December 2031. The application, a revision of the earlier one (ref: P/2025/3274), would allow up to 22 live event days per year, with a total of 115 days on site including build, break and “dark” days. This represents a substantial reduction from the original 10-year proposal and the 28 live days previously sought.

The CIC says the revisions are meaningful rather than cosmetic. It has agreed to reduce the term, cut the number of event days, and voluntarily cap sound levels below those permitted by the recently reviewed premises licence. The new plan limits the loudest events to a maximum of 73dB(A), with at least 12 days restricted to 70dB(A) — “significantly lower than that permitted by the licensing conditions,” the CIC notes.

The shift follows a bruising licensing review in March, triggered by a 300-page submission from Gunnersbury Park Garden Estate Residents Association (GPGERA) citing noise, crowd management, antisocial behaviour and the cumulative impact of large-scale concerts. The review resulted in modified licence conditions but stopped short of the dramatic restrictions some campaigners had sought. The CIC’s updated Event Management Plan Summary, revised this month, states that it has been updated “following the Licence Review Application… to ensure the five-year planning permission aligns with the Licence and its modified conditions.”

However, GPGERA says the revised planning application still falls far short of what residents expected.

In a statement the association said, “The revised application does not appear to address many of the substantive concerns raised by residents during the original planning and licensing processes. The changes are limited, while the consultation has not been formally reopened, no new notices have been placed around the park and residents have had little opportunity to engage meaningfully with the revised proposal.”

Residents, GPGERA says, continue to raise legitimate concerns about noise, crime and antisocial behaviour, pressure on local roads and public transport, harm to wildlife and the cumulative impact of repeated large events on surrounding communities. The association argues that the licensing process earlier this year recognised many of these harms and imposed additional requirements — and that planning should not now contradict that decision by granting blanket permission for impacts the Council has already acknowledged.

GPGERA also questions the financial case underpinning the CIC’s push for multi-year consent. While the CIC argues that long-term planning permission is essential for financial stability — particularly with council service-fee funding due to end in 2028 — the residents’ association notes that last year saw more festival activity than ever, yet the CIC still reported a loss of £81,133.

“This raises reasonable questions about whether the current approach is delivering the financial benefits being claimed,” the statement says. GPGERA is calling for clear, detailed accounts showing event income, subcontractor and operating costs, event-related expenditure and how much revenue is ultimately reinvested in the maintenance and restoration of the park.

The association also argues that residents’ alternative funding proposals have not been given serious consideration, and that the Council and CIC should explore a broader, more resilient strategy rather than relying increasingly on large-scale commercial events. It suggests that Brentford Community Stadium should be considered more fully for additional major events, given its permanent infrastructure and ability to accommodate large crowds without occupying public playing fields.

“Our aim is not to prevent all events,” GPGERA says. *“It is to secure balance through shorter permissions, meaningful annual review, clear limits, independent monitoring, proper consultation and full financial accountability.”* The group says it would welcome an open discussion with the Council, the CIC and event organisers about how that balance can be achieved.

For its part, the CIC argues that the benefits of the revised plan outweigh the impacts, citing more than £35 million in projected economic value to London and Hounslow over the five-year term, alongside hundreds of millions in on- and off-site visitor spending. It also highlights the wider cultural and community benefits, from education programmes to volunteering and skills development.

Historic England, which has previously raised concerns about the impact of events on the park’s heritage landscape, is quoted in the application acknowledging that events are a “vital contributor” to the park’s upkeep. The heritage body also supports the principle of a multi-year permission, saying it would “set up an integrated mid-to-long-term approach” and avoid the piecemeal, repetitive applications that have characterised recent years.

But with residents unconvinced that the revised proposal addresses the core issues, the debate is unlikely to end here. The question of how many events the park should host — and how their impacts should be managed — has become one of the most divisive local issues in the area. The CIC’s concessions may soften some opposition, but the underlying tensions remain.