Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
'People's Palace' Plan Scorned
This from Elizabeth Pears at the Haringey Independent, 23rd March 2008:
A vision to re-brand Alexandra Palace as a cultural landmark and community hub has been scorned by the board of trustees.
Pressure group Save Ally Pally, which opposes Haringey Council's plan to sell the historic building to a private developer, has come up with a plan which it believes will safeguard the Palace's future.
At a meeting on Tuesday, the campaign group gave a presentation called The Way Forward, outlining its view of how the Palace should be run.
A spokeswoman for the group said: "It was a really inspiring night and we all felt it. What we have put forward is a vision for a real people's Palace and something really special for the community and Britain as a whole.
"Our plans, although still a work in progress, demonstrate it can work and how easy it would be to set up."
Under the proposals the current board of trustees, largely made up of councillors, would be replaced with a non-political charity called the People's Palace Trust - taking the burden of maintaining it away from the council.
The group's vision also includes a full restoration of the old Victorian theatre and television studios to become a museum with a media centre for educational use.
The plans will also include hot air balloon rides and getting the ice rink brought up to Olympic standard ahead of the 2012 Games.
But the board of trustees remain unconvinced and dismissed the idea as "unrealistic".
A Palace spokeswoman said: "Save Ally Pally's un-costed proposal to allow self-appointed representatives to take over the management of the Palace, while asking Haringey Council to fund them, is naïve.
"The Palace needs a realistic redevelopment investment strategy to the benefit of the whole community - rather than using valuable resources to meet the demands of a single-interest group that has waged a media campaign that will only undermine its future."
Save Ally Pally said it would raise the money to maintain the Palace by introducing membership fixed at £10 a month, and securing funding from charitable organisations, private donations and grants. It also wants to bid for Alexandra Palace to be registered as a UNESCO site.
The group also said £1 million should be donated by Haringey Council for the first two years of the new lease to help with running costs.
The council currently pays an average £1.5m a year to make up the shortfall of Palace accounts.
A vision to re-brand Alexandra Palace as a cultural landmark and community hub has been scorned by the board of trustees.
Pressure group Save Ally Pally, which opposes Haringey Council's plan to sell the historic building to a private developer, has come up with a plan which it believes will safeguard the Palace's future.
At a meeting on Tuesday, the campaign group gave a presentation called The Way Forward, outlining its view of how the Palace should be run.
A spokeswoman for the group said: "It was a really inspiring night and we all felt it. What we have put forward is a vision for a real people's Palace and something really special for the community and Britain as a whole.
"Our plans, although still a work in progress, demonstrate it can work and how easy it would be to set up."
Under the proposals the current board of trustees, largely made up of councillors, would be replaced with a non-political charity called the People's Palace Trust - taking the burden of maintaining it away from the council.
The group's vision also includes a full restoration of the old Victorian theatre and television studios to become a museum with a media centre for educational use.
The plans will also include hot air balloon rides and getting the ice rink brought up to Olympic standard ahead of the 2012 Games.
But the board of trustees remain unconvinced and dismissed the idea as "unrealistic".
A Palace spokeswoman said: "Save Ally Pally's un-costed proposal to allow self-appointed representatives to take over the management of the Palace, while asking Haringey Council to fund them, is naïve.
"The Palace needs a realistic redevelopment investment strategy to the benefit of the whole community - rather than using valuable resources to meet the demands of a single-interest group that has waged a media campaign that will only undermine its future."
Save Ally Pally said it would raise the money to maintain the Palace by introducing membership fixed at £10 a month, and securing funding from charitable organisations, private donations and grants. It also wants to bid for Alexandra Palace to be registered as a UNESCO site.
The group also said £1 million should be donated by Haringey Council for the first two years of the new lease to help with running costs.
The council currently pays an average £1.5m a year to make up the shortfall of Palace accounts.
Tags for Forum Posts: Ally Pally, alexandrapalace, saveallypally
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by matt on
-
As I understand it a debt of £60m against Ally Pally was transferred from the Thatcher govt of the day over to the council. Does anyone know if this is basically correct and whether this debt been paid off/written off yet? I suspect it hasn't and this is why we have a community group & the council arguing with each other over what to do with this landmark.
-
Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on
-
Sorry to disappoint you, Matt. The Thatcher Government didn't transfer a single bean to Haringey Council for Ally Pally. But one reason why Save Ally Pally and the Council don't see eye-to-eye is a lack of any common ground about the facts of the current and previous financial arrangements between the Alexandra Palace Trust and the Council.
It might be helpful - for interested local residents as well as Save Ally Pally - if an attempt was made to set this out clearly and accurately. Even partial agreement on the facts would be preferable to the current parallel monologues.
Reading some of the posts on Harringayonline, it strikes me there's often a need for an Introductory Guide to various issues. I have in mind the sort of "Quick-Start-Here" you get if your new camera, washing machine, or software package comes with well-written set of manuals. It gives an overview; and enough of the basics to get going. It must be clear and accurate, without being condescending. Ideally, it also points to where you can dig down into more complex issues and features that you might need or want to explore.
Apart from Alexandra Place, I can think of other local topics where this could be useful and possibly welcome. Planning and Licensing is one - especially, betting shops and housing conversions. Following Hugh's lead, how about a quick Get-Up-to-Speed guide to Haringey Heartlands? As a councillor, I'm happy to pass on any suggestions.
-
Permalink Reply by Hugh on
-
You're absolutely right about the need for a quick-start guide to the many complex issues we're dealing with here. To that end, I got half-way through setting up a Wiki for just this purpose. But then I noticed that Ning are very soon to add a Wiki module. So I'm waiting for that.
Whichever way we go with the Wiki, we'll need some keen and well-informed contributors..............Alan........................
-
Permalink Reply by Clive Carter on
-
Dear Councillor Stanton,
What you have suggested is entirely reasonable.
An attempt to set out clearly and accurately the facts of the current and previous financial arrangements, between the AP Trust and the Council, has been made by SAP. Can I respectfully suggest you take a look at the following web page:
http://saveallypally.com/accounts.html
whose conclusions are based on an analysis by an independent accountant, of 10 years of AP accounts to 2006. Since then, the finances have been dominated by big spending made in an effort to dispose of the asset and AP has decidedly gone into the red.
The biggest and most recent contributor to the cash hemorrhage has been Firoka's holding on to a huge sum of money after they were evicted from AP, money which is owed to our Trust. Much of the sum represents advance payment deposits. (Will you or your colleagues please try to get this back for Haringey ratepayers and all of us beneficiaries? I also understand that Firoka might not have paid everything they owe in connection with their eight month occupation of our Palace, of which at least the last three months was unlawful).
To return to the analysis of the long-run trading operations (over the 10 year period) I would be most interested to learn if you agree with it and if not, why not and where. I agree with you that even a partial agreement on the facts would be preferable to the current parallel monologues.
Yours sincerely
Clive Carter (N4)
-
-
Hi Matt,
The scandal of the attempted fire sale of Alexandra Palace
The Alexandra Palace (AP) issue is big, complex and chronic. But as a member of the Save Ally Pally group, I can offer some suggestions.
To answer your first point, AP was transferred from the GLC (as was), i.e. under the control of a consortium of London-wide Councils, to a single, skint Council, Haringey, in 1980. In order to sweeten this deal, the GLC paid Haringey a 'dowry' of £6.5 million pounds, which was a great deal of money in those days. The reasons for the transfer are not entirely clear and others will know more about that than me.
Shortly after the transfer, a fire burnt down most of AP, except the priceless TV studios and the irreplaceable original Victorian Theatre. Haringey received an insurance payout of I think £24 million - again, a huge sum in the mid-1980s. The underwriters delayed payment for some while because they were not convinced that Haringey were even going to rebuild our charity's main asset.
Haringey Council lost control of the rebuilding costs and built up a huge debt which they unlawfully dumped into the Palace's accounts. They were told not to do this by no less than the Treasury Solicitor in 1996, but this enormous supposed debt has been left there and with accrued "interest", ballooned into an alleged debt of £34 million. it's current status is not entirely clear; Jacob O'Callaghan and I have taken this up with the District Auditor.
This huge sum is treated as an asset in Haringey's books (!) and OUR charity have been expected to treat it as a loan. The whole thing is a nonsense and reflects Haringey's unwillingness to take responsibility for *their* losing control of the rebuilding costs. It also reflects the blurring of responsibilities for the Councilor-Trustees: between their duty to a Charity Trust and their duty to the Council.
Our Trust, under Council control, employs one of London's most expensive PR companies to persuade the public of the case for sale to a property developer. Lexington Communciations have received at least £182,200 of our charity funds or our council taxes between January 2005 and November 2007 (figures obtained under Freedom of Information Act).
SAP can't and doesn't employ any PR firm. If you are interested in further reading of a more honest nature on this rather large subject, I can suggest our main site:
http://www.saveallypally.com/
my own blog:
http://carteruncut.blogspot.com
the petition to the PM I started on 27 February has over 800 signatures:
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/SaveAllyPally
As to the disagreement between SAP and the Council, I find myself agreeing with Councilor Stanton in his post. Although Alan Stanton and I might disagree about other aspects of AP, I believe he is right in identifying a lack of common ground about the facts of the current and previous financial arrangements between the Trust and the Council. These matters lie at the heart of the dispute and the alleged justification for the sale to a property developer with a formidable reputation.
Matt, if you Google just one other thing on this subject, please Google "Firoz Kassam" + "Oxford City Council".
Unless the financial disagreements can be resolved by mutual agreement, as they should be, I fear that only further court action will cause the Council behave lawfully, with the attendant waste of time and public funds.
In order to keep the Firoka company as its "preferred development partner", our Council engages in questionable behaviour. Perhaps the most easily understood example is about the gambling license application. We currently have the trading arm of (our) charitable trust, applying to the Council for a permanent gambling premises licence at our charitable trust's main asset (AP). Since the trading arm (AP Trading Ltd.) is controlled by the Council, the Council is in effect applying to itself for a gambling license ! The Council will probably award itself that premises license, but should the Council be seen to be condoning gambling? No date yet set for the hearing.
Sincerely,
Clive Carter, N4
SAP
-
-
Clive,
Thank you for taking the time to tell us so much about what lies behind the failure to manage what should be Haringey's greatest building/location.
Do you have a list of the people who sit on the Trust, with their positions of responsibility within the Trust and to whom they represent outside of the Trust?
I for one haven't visited Ally Pally itself for a few years. Looking at the events list on the Palace website for 2008 it looks as though I'll be staying away another year. There are facilities for events, an ice rink and a pub ...oh and a national treasure in the BBC site, which members of the public are unable at present to visit. That's it. Not even a good restaurant! Great view from Ally Pally. Pity it's not utilized in a more imaginative way.
-
-
Hi Matt,
Couldn't agree more that AP should be Haringey's greatest building/location. It is far the most important building in our Borough and it is the Bletchley Park of London. For Mr Kassam, it would be a seven and a half acre building site, with panoramic views over London. All for a reported £1.5 million agreed sale price, a sum now well exceeded by sale costs to the long list of professional adviser hangers-on. More than three quarters of a million pounds of our charity funds paid to two law firms alone.
Re. Trust members: that's a good question. One body of legal opinion has it that all councillors, jointly and severally are Trustees; another has it that the Trustees are the members of the Board, which is a committee of the Council. You might guess that this is intensely political and AP regretably has become a political football. You could be forgiven for believing otherwise, but please remember that this is a Charitable Trust, whose beneficiaries are you, me and all the public. This is true in law and it remains an inconvenient truth for the Council.
The involvement of politicians has been the key factor in the chronic unsuccess of AP, and our proposals would see the politicians removed from the Board, with new, independent Trustees. The current Trustees, transitory Councillors in the main, can be seen listed on Haringey's web site at:
http://www.minutes.haringey.gov.uk/mgCommitteeDetails.asp?ID=105&am...
One of the Trust Board members, who had better remain nameless, was overheard to say "I don't know what is going on". This was at least honest, and probably goes for most of the Trustees who understandably, cannot devote much time to AP because of their primary duties as Ward Councillors and Council matters. The Chairman, who might be expected to know the most, is re-elected 12 monthly and a few have lasted as long as two or three years. The Chairman is greatly dependent on long term managers and advisers for information. You may come to know about the quality of their advice.
As far as I know, individual Trustees do not have positions of responsibility. Contrary to what the Charity Commission should be expecting in the management of a Charity, decisions of the Board are in practice a rubber-stamping of decisions pre-made by the majority Council group. Trustees have a clear conflict of interest in duty, but the Council ignores this.
It might surprise you to learn that, in the aspect that most worries me - the Council's turning a blind eye to the destruction of the world's first television studios by their development partner - I have never been in the studios - they are closed to the public.
I first became involved in the SAP campaign when I observed the intense secrecy about the "sale" to Firoka. I asked to see a copy of the Lease - in order better to respond to the public consultation - and was disgusted with the response from Haringey. The Council were and still are hoping to sweep this huge mess - of their making - in one go, under the carpet and permanently.
The first victory we had was persuading a High Court judge to rule that the consultation was unlawful (he also quashed the Lease and awarded costs against Haringey because of their conduct. I sat in court the whole day. I made a Witness Statement. I have observed Haringey's conduct).
The second victory was when we forced Haringey to evict Firoka from AP. Firoka had been occupying AP since May 07 and were evicted in January. They are holding on to a very large sum of money which is owed to our Charity. Will our Board get it back on behalf of us, the beneficiaries?
The third victory will come when Haringey decide, after a mountain of evidence piling up, that Firoka should no longer be their "preferred development partner".
In contrast to the obsessive secrecy of the Board of Trustees and the proven unlawfulness of their behaviour, the SAP group has nothing to hide and actively welcomes involvement of the community.
In that context, I was amused at the PR company's spin that SAP is a "single interest group". We are a broad-based group, not aligned politically. This "single interest group" is yet another attempt to marginalize the developing public revolt. The council first tried to portray SAP as the eccentric obsession of a "local resident" (i.e. historian and writer Jacob O'Callaghan). The legal action taken in Jacob's name was heard in a High Court that was packed out. The Council have also tried to blame their AP problems on the Council minority group and even on the underbidder (Earls Court and Olympia) in the tender process for AP! They take no personal responsibility and when costs were awarded against them, there was not the slightest hint of an apology. SAP holds up a big mirror to Council incompetence over AP and they don't like it (up 'em)!
If you'd like more detail on where our money's gone, check out the attached file, 'AP Trust spending".
Clive - Attachments:
-
-
AP Trust spending.pdf, 108 KB
-
-
-
And the committee members are;
Penny Proctor
Councillor Matt Cooke (Chair)
Councillor Pat Egan (Vice-Chair)
Councillor David Beacham
Councillor Dilek Dogus
Councillor Bob Hare
Councillor John Oakes
Councillor Sheila Peacock
Val Paley
M Tarpey
Nigel Willmott
David Liebeck
Not sure who the non-councillors are.
-
Permalink Reply by Liz on
-
Thank you for this info. My family and I often spend time at Ally Pally and it is my four year old's favourite spot. Haringey councils disregard for the preservation of its historical buildings is criminal. I have signed the petition and hope that some of the 400 odd members that are on this site will also do so in support of the SAP campaign.
-
Permalink Reply by John McMullan on
-
Matt, I invite you to come down to Ally Pally on a summers afternoon (in the weekend) and sit in the grounds of the racecourse with a pint of IPA (from the clubroom bar) watching the more interesting of the two games of cricket going on. The is where Don Bradman made his film 'How I play cricket'.
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
