Consultants brought in to decide Ally Pally's fate

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by dee_gee on January 20, 2011 at 0:27

Thanks for the news article. It would be awful if Ally Pally was sold off to developers to do god knows what with (a casino and shopping centre were some of the ideas I think).

With the coalition government planning to sell off ALL of britain's forests to developers, I wouldn't be surprised now if these plans did start to go ahead.

I love ally pally and, as I don't have access to a garden, I've spent many summer weekends in the grounds just soaking up the sun, taking photos and exploring. We can't let this place go!

Is there anything us residents can do?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on January 20, 2011 at 1:00

Hugh, I'm a bit puzzled about where this "news item" comes from. Is there any factual basis for Clive Carter's suspicion that this is: "a back door way of bringing back the old failed policy of outright sale to a developer".

The last report I recall which mentioned the Regeneration Working Group was this one last November. But it doesn't say anything about selling off the Ally Pally. I read it as saying the opposite, in fact.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Clive Carter on January 20, 2011 at 9:07

Alan, it probably comes from a journalist who asked me for comment, only some of which have been reported.

I think it would be better if the source could be attributed and credited with news "items" like this.

I am pleased you have questioned the "factual basis" for my concerns – only a few facts are in the public domain about this latest venture, which includes further attention to ''branding". I would have thought the last consultants employed (for the Stakeholder Forum in late 2009) spent enough time and money on that aspect.

Some of what goes on at our Charity goes on behind closed doors and this normally applies to anything significant. Concealment was never more so than at the time of the council's last attempt to sell-off our palace in 2006-7. Things have improved since then. But since the Trust Board have few ideas of their own, the future of the palace is going to be researched by a committee of municipal employees (known as the Regeneration Working Group) who in turn have delegated this task to outside consultants.

The latest consultants have an impressive client list and appear to have relevant experience. One can only hope for the best, but it has to be noted that over the last 30 years, armies of consultants have been engaged at great cost. All the previous reports produced could probably paper every wall of our palace.

It is a fact that we don't know what the latest consultants' brief is (it may be entirely sensible) but regardless, I for one would have more confidence if the consultants had been commissioned by independent trustees. Despite all that has happened in the last three years, the underlying, fundamental governance problems have yet to be addressed in a meaningful way.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on January 20, 2011 at 11:24

Thanks, Clive.

As you know, I completely support information about public bodies being in the public domain as far as possible. (Obviously, there are legitimate issues about people's personal data; and about commercial interests.)

But before you speculate on the consultants' brief and whether it would "resurrect" a "discredited policy", wouldn't it have been a good idea to ask to see it? Presumably the LibDem members of the Board (your party colleagues) have had copies and could have told you if it was or wasn't about a sell-off.

As you well know, I too am dubious about the millions the Council has spent on consultants in the past. But weren't some of them worth every penny? For example, Martin Walklate's investigations and his two hefty and detailed reports (with one more due shortly) let in some fresh air on the Adje/Firoka deal at the Ally Pally.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Clive Carter on January 20, 2011 at 12:00

Alan I have now read the full article (page 4 of the paper edition) in the Journal which I think is on this web page; not all of my comments were used of course.

I agree with you in your quest for facts. It would indeed be interesting to see the Brief to the Consultants. But the engagement of this latest round of consultants has been known for fewer than 10 days.

It is probably still worth doing an FoI for the Brief, but it has to be recognised that (a) FoI requests can take literally months to answer, which is a length of time that in theory is illegal and (b) the request can be declined. Requests for information in connection with aspects of the Palace are sometimes refused on the basis of commercial confidentiality.

I favour independent Trustees, without party political allegiance. You've suggested that the Trust Board has copies of the Brief (I don't know). In the past, relevant information has been withheld, even from Trustees, as I think you know. I don't know to what extent the Trust Board is in the loop, as the Consultants appear to have been engaged by the AP Regeneration Working Group (an ad hoc committee of council employees).

Any Brief, of itself, is unlikely explicitly to re-start the sale policy. It would be interesting to see the Brief, but it is unlikely to say "how do we try to flog it again" or, "please justify another flogging attempt". Nothing so crude, but what little we know does give rise to at least some concern. The engagement of more consultants is surely the beginning of another process of some kind.

The report from these consultants could yet prove to be useful and helpful and my concerns about "holistic" sale will prove to be unfounded. And I completely agree about the value of Martin Walklate's reports. It will be a fine thing if the concerns he raised about governance, are actually addressed. Until this nettle is grasped, much else is likely to waste more time and money.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on January 20, 2011 at 15:01

So, Clive, if I understand correctly, this is your view:

● The Ally Pally have hired consultants and you are interested to see their brief.

● But you assume a request to see it - even if made under the Freedom of Information Act - would take months to get a response - and possibly be refused.

● Even if they showed you the brief, you think it probably wouldn't explicitly say anything which supported your suspicions. Which wouldn't prove you were wrong.

● On the other hand, your suspicions and speculations might be unfounded and the consultants' report might prove useful.

● But you haven't actually made any request yet.

● Even so, you think it's okay to give negative comments to a local paper.

 

Sorry, I just can't follow this. Why don't you ring up Pat Egan, the Chair of the Ally Pally Board, and ask him for a copy of the consultants' brief? Why didn't the Hornsey Journal?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Clive Carter on January 20, 2011 at 15:47

Alan you seem to think that sighting the Brief (I am assuming that one exists and that the £35,000 contract is not just on the back of a phone call) will answer everything.

I will probably seek the Brief as you suggest, but its only one piece of evidence. Even if the Brief is all we would wish it to be, this is no guarantee of the content of any report and recommendations. If a brief exists, it is, presumably, just a starting point for the latest consultants.

I gave comments to a local newspaper because I was asked to, and those comments were more out of concern than negative. I hope you don't feel the comments on the need for governance were "negative": governance continues to deserve criticism. Not all of my comments were negative and not all of them were used. 

Regrettably the council hasn't always enjoyed full confidence in any of these matters.

Those who have questioned what goes on about Alexandra Palace in the past have had their concerns amply justified. Things have improved since the dark days of 2007 (and the occupation by the former slum landlord), but the price of our continuance of our Charitable Trust is vigilance.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on January 20, 2011 at 17:33

Sometimes, Clive, you get the best from people by inviting the best.

Okay, I accept there were serious problems in the past with Ally Pally.(Nobody who has read the Walklate Reports with an open mind could possibly deny this.)

But subsequently I believe things changed. I was on the Board for a year - Cllr Pat Egan was chair - and I dispute the view that information was withheld. Yes, the multiplicity of bodies involved with the Trust seemed dysfunctional and sometimes confusing. But Pat himself always did his best to be open. As - it seemed to me - did the Ally Pally staff.

The fact that both (highly critical) Walklate Reports were put in the public domain was a clear sign of this approach. 

 

(Tottenham Hale ward councillor)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by PeterPiper on January 20, 2011 at 12:07

Re "Adje/Firoka deal at the Ally Pally"

- Alan, do you mean Councillor Charles Adje?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on January 20, 2011 at 14:25

Yes, indeed, Peter. 

I was referring to the Licence granted to Firoka (Alexandra Palace) Ltd when Cllr Adje chaired the Board. You can read about it in the independent reports by Martin Walklate. Here's the link to the first Walklate Report.

Perhaps Clive can give us a web link for the second Walklate Report which fills out the picture with some additional information.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Clive Carter on January 20, 2011 at 15:51

The Walklate 2 Report is still available for viewing and download from the council's website.

The link (above) goes to the Agenda for a Board meeting of 16 April 2009 and shows the Agenda context. The Agenda item is: 

FURTHER INDEPENDENT REVIEW OF A LICENCE TO OPERATE 

GRANTED TO FIROKA AND THE LOSSES CAUSED TO THE CHARITY  PDF 2 MB

This link should cause the two megabyte pdf file to download immediately to your computer, but if that does not work or you wish to see the context, use first link.

The Walklate 2 Report was an extension of the Walklate 1 investigation about the Licence-to-Firoka, the losses caused to our Charity and the conduct of the previous General Manager (and then consultant) Keith Edwin Holder. 

The Brief was to cover his liability for any losses caused to our Charity and its trading company (APTL) and the merits or demerits of any action to recover such losses.

The recommendation to the Board at the time was that they take no further action on the matter.

• ▶ Reply