Ealing councillors have rejected an opposition attempt to stop a proposed 1,200-seat temporary theatre in Walpole Park. The vote, at Full Council on 13th October 2026, leaves the controversial Walpole Park theatre proposal alive despite objections from residents and opposition parties.
This was a political vote on whether to abandon the idea. It was not planning permission, approval of building works or the grant of a lease. Ealing’s Cabinet agreed on 9th September to explore a lease in principle, but expressly required planning permission, consultation and a further Cabinet decision before the proposal could proceed.
That distinction matters for people who use the park or live nearby. The debate has exposed disagreements over heritage, open space, traffic, noise and the future of the Ealing Summer Festivals. Those questions have not been settled by the vote. I’d follow the planning application and statutory open-space notice rather than treat this Council vote as the final word. Local people should still have opportunities to comment on the next formal steps.
What happened to the Walpole Park theatre motion?
The opposition motion was moved by Liberal Democrat councillor Connie Hersch and seconded by councillor Ksenia Maximova. According to the official Council agenda for 13th October, it asked the decision-making Cabinet to withdraw the proposal and take no further steps towards the lease, investigate an alternative brownfield location and reassure organisers of the summer festivals.
A Conservative amendment from councillor Julian Gallant sought an explicit guarantee that the structure would be removed at the end of its proposed three-year operating period. Both the amendment and the opposition motion were defeated, according to contemporaneous reporting by Ealing News and The Ealing Post. The published council agenda confirms the documents debated, but the written minutes of this Full Council meeting were not available when this report was prepared.
Following the vote, campaigner Marc Goodchild told Ealing News that opponents were “more fired up than ever”. The motion itself, available as an official Council PDF, recorded 8,297 signatures across three opposing petitions at the time it was submitted. Those are petition signature counts, not evidence that 8,297 different people opposed the proposal; overlap between petitions is possible.
Another petition, reported to have reached 5,250 signatures when it closed on 4th October, may lead to its own Council consideration. It was not the motion voted on on 13th October. Anyone following the Walpole Park theatre controversy should therefore distinguish the Council motion, the petition process and the legally separate planning and land decisions.
What is proposed for the park?
Ealing Council’s announcement of 2nd September describes a temporary, heated and air-conditioned theatre with approximately 1,200 seats, a foyer, box office and bar. Troubadour Theatres Limited would fund, manage and operate it, with the intention of attracting large productions that Ealing cannot currently host in a venue of this size.
The proposal is for a three-year theatre operation, while the Cabinet’s recorded in-principle lease is for three and a half years to accommodate the wider project. The published 9th September Cabinet minutes expressly make the lease subject to planning permission and a final report for a final decision. A target opening date mentioned earlier is therefore not a confirmed construction programme.
Council leader Peter Mason has argued that the project could bring audiences and spending into the town centre and test whether Ealing could support a permanent professional theatre elsewhere. That is the economic case being advanced, not a demonstrated outcome. Opponents argue that customers may spend within the theatre itself and question whether any wider benefits justify the use of protected public parkland.
The Walpole Park theatre could also disrupt the Ealing Summer Festivals, which have long used the park for temporary events. Those arguing against the location are not necessarily against a theatre in Ealing. Much of the dispute is about whether this particular public open space is the right place to trial a substantial new venue.
Why the park’s historic status matters
Walpole Park is a Grade II registered historic park and garden, identified by Historic England under entry 1000847. Its historic development is closely linked to Pitzhanger Manor and landscape work associated with Sir John Soane and John Haverfield. It should not be described simply as a Grade II listed building: registered landscapes and individually listed buildings have different designations.
Registration makes the significance of the designed landscape an important matter for the planning assessment. It does not automatically forbid temporary structures, nor does registration by itself create a separate form of listed building consent for work within the park. Effects on nearby separately listed structures would require assessment where relevant.
For the Walpole Park theatre, a robust application would need to explain the precise site boundary, the effect on views, trees and public access, servicing arrangements, construction disturbance, landscape restoration and the cumulative effect of running a large venue. Calling a structure temporary is relevant, but does not remove the need to assess its impact while it is there.
Some speakers disputed how much of the park would be taken: the opposition motion referred to about a third, while the council’s governing group gave a figure below 10%. These are competing claims using potentially different definitions of land affected. The actual red-line boundary, enclosure and operational land should be judged against published plans, rather than choosing either political percentage as established fact.
The three approvals still to come
First, the proposed disposal or lease of open space requires a statutory public notice and consideration of representations. The motion referred to the two-week notice process under section 123 of the Local Government Act 1972. No confirmed opening date for that particular objection window had been found when this article was prepared.
Secondly, the operator will need to follow the planning process for development requiring permission. The Walpole Park theatre application, supporting assessments and any publicity arrangements should allow the public to examine its actual effects. A petition or a speech at Full Council does not substitute for a representation on a subsequent application.
Thirdly, the in-principle lease decision must return to Cabinet. The Cabinet minutes explicitly say the statutory consultation comments and objections are to inform the eventual decision whether to grant the lease. Even a favourable planning decision would not, by itself, compel the council to dispose of the land on the proposed terms.
Anyone wishing to support or oppose the scheme should watch those processes separately. The case for more arts provision deserves proper consideration, as does the value of retaining an established public park and its historic setting. Neither question is answered merely because councillors voted down a motion to stop discussing the scheme.
What the latest decision changes
For now, the Walpole Park theatre is a live proposal rather than an authorised development. The 13th October vote leaves the governing Cabinet free to continue exploring it; it does not settle the planning balance or the conditions under which public land could be leased.
The next meaningful news will be the statutory open-space notice, publication of a planning application with usable plans and evidence, or a further Cabinet decision. Those documents, rather than the political shorthand of a proposal being ‘approved’ or ‘rejected’, will establish what may actually happen on the ground.
0 Comments