Row Breaks Out Over Gunnersbury Park Consultation Poster Warning

Resident group accuses council of inconsistency in enforcement

Resident association says council should prioritise enforcement against flyposting for events in the area. Picture: GPGERA

June 24, 2026

A row has broken out after a warning by Hounslow Council over posters place around the area of Gunnersbury Park.

The notices were intended to encourage residents to respond to a consultation on the management of the park’s request for blanket permission to hold events next year.

The warning was issued after posters carrying the Gunnersbury Park Garden Estate Residents Association’s (GPGERA) branding and a QR code linking directly to the Council’s planning portal were found attached to street furniture. The association has said it does not accept any admission of liability and does not authorise unlawful fly‑posting, but it has also questioned why community notices about a live planning application have prompted swift enforcement action when commercial event posters have appeared locally for years with little visible consequence. In its response to the council the association highlighted a number of posters for pop music events in the area which it believed the council should take action on.

Hounslow Council has defended its decision to warn the association over posters encouraging neighbours to take part in the consultation, saying it is obliged to investigate any unauthorised notices placed.

A spokesperson for the Council said the authority “has a duty to investigate reports relating to unauthorised notices displayed on the public highway and to take appropriate and proportionate action where necessary.” In this case, the Council said, those responsible were contacted and given the opportunity to remove the notices. The spokesperson added that the Council’s approach “does not take into account the content or purpose of any notices displayed” and drew a distinction between statutory planning notices and other material “that actively promote a particular viewpoint.” The Council, they said, remains committed to ensuring residents can participate in planning consultations through the appropriate statutory processes.

The exchange comes at a sensitive moment in the long-running debate over the future of major events in Gunnersbury Park. Earlier this month, the park’s management body, the Gunnersbury Estate (2026) CIC, submitted a revised planning application seeking five years of permission for large-scale outdoor events. The proposal, covering the period from early 2027 to the end of 2031, would allow up to 22 live event days each year, with a total of 115 occupation days including build and break periods. It represents a significant reduction from the original 10‑year proposal and from the 28 live days previously sought.

The CIC says the revisions are substantial. It has reduced the term, cut the number of event days and committed to sound limits below those permitted by the recently reviewed premises licence. Under the new plan, the loudest events would be capped at 73dB(A), with at least 12 days limited to 70dB(A). The organisation argues that the changes reflect lessons from the licensing review in March, which followed a detailed submission from the residents’ association raising concerns about noise, crowd management, antisocial behaviour and the cumulative impact of repeated large events. The review resulted in modified licence conditions but did not impose the more stringent restrictions some residents had sought.

GPGERA, however, says the revised planning application does not address the core issues raised over the past year. In a statement, the association said residents had not been given a meaningful opportunity to engage with the updated proposal, noting that no new site notices had been visibly displayed at park entrances and that many residents received neighbour notification letters several days after the date printed on them. The group argues that the consultation should be extended to ensure residents have a fair chance to respond.

The association continues to raise concerns about noise, crime and antisocial behaviour, pressure on local roads and public transport, harm to wildlife and the cumulative effect of repeated large events on surrounding communities. It also points to the licensing review earlier this year, which acknowledged several of these impacts, and argues that planning decisions should not now grant blanket permission for activities the Council has already recognised as harmful.

Financial transparency remains another point of contention. The CIC has said long-term planning permission is essential for financial stability, particularly as council service-fee funding is due to end in 2028. GPGERA notes that last year saw more festival activity than ever, yet the CIC still reported a loss of £81,133. The association says this raises reasonable questions about whether the current model is delivering the financial benefits being claimed and is calling for detailed accounts showing event income, subcontractor costs, event-related expenditure and how much revenue is reinvested in the park.

The group also argues that alternative funding proposals put forward by residents have not been fully explored and that the Council and CIC should consider a broader strategy rather than relying increasingly on large-scale commercial events. It suggests that Brentford Community Stadium, with its permanent infrastructure and capacity for large crowds, should be considered more seriously for additional major events.

The CIC maintains that the benefits of the revised plan outweigh the impacts. It cites more than £35 million in projected economic value to London and Hounslow over the five-year period, alongside wider cultural and community benefits including education programmes, 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 help establish a more integrated long-term approach and avoid the cycle of repeated applications.

The planning application remains open for comment, and both supporters and opponents are preparing for what is expected to be a closely watched decision.