Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Alexandra Palace - More obfuscation by Haringey Council
Recent update on the latest happenings at Ally Pally from the save Ally Pally campaign:
When one has reluctantly had to take a local authority and the Charity Commission to the High Court, it was nice to hear, at the last Board of charity trustees meeting on 12th January, the councillors finally agreeing to abandon Haringey's mad cunning plan for Ally Pally, of which even Baldrick would be ashamed. Yes, the policy of flogging a complete landmark building, birthplace of television no less, held in trust for the people of London, to a developer, seemed finally dead - for the time being.
Andrew Gill, the acting General Manager, should be congratulated for proposing this policy be formally dumped. He also usefully proposed some alternative ways in which funds could be raised.
Exactly thirty years ago Haringey, a single, cash-strapped and failing local authority, was looney enough to take over the trusteeship from the GLC, (voluntarily - it was before the GLC was abolished), for reasons which were then, and remain unclear. The then Tory opposition opposed the takeover and warned the "dowry" was insufficient for the duties the council was taking on. But the Labour whips forced through the vote, with the single rebel being a certain Cllr Bernie Grant. The dissenters were right: Haringey Council never did and still cannot, or will not, fulfil its duty as trustee to maintain the fabric of the building and keep it accessible for the public who pay for it apart the growing areas taken over by commercial users.
Over Christmas and New Year London visitors found they were locked out from the Palm Court for whose restoration they had paid. And the lovely Victorian Theatre (seen recently in the BBC film "Margot") and historic BBC studios have been almost wrecked by leaking roofs over the Haringey years.
So now the council should be trying to find out how transfer of governance to a more suitable and viable set of trustees can be best achieved. And this is exactly what we were promised by the Board was being done, with the full involvement of interested parties and stakeholders.
In October many of these were invited to the Palace for a day by the Palace's commercial trading company manager, Rebecca Kane, to consider and debate the options. The option everyone ended up almost unanimously supporting simply proposed independence from Haringey - with an independent board of trustees, and retaining a role for a statutory Advisory committee. This option has always been one of SAP's core policies and it was gratifying that the forum came to the same conclusion.
On January 12th, Ms Kane gave a report to the Board on the forum. The independence option we had all chosen - Option 2 - was missing. Instead Ms Kane confusingly produced two new options - 2a and 2b - only developed at one table during the course of the day and therefore not included in the options seen and discussed by the whole room. Ms Kane asked the trustees to pay £15,000 for KMPG to advise on how to achieve these new options, which keep a role for Haringey. Her report, and a comment of one of the trustees, Cllr Hare, seemed to assume that the objectives and activities of the trading company and the charity are identical, and therefore could be merged. She even seemed to suggest giving a 125-year-lease of the Palace to the trading company, which would leave none of the Palace left for visitors and the charitable purposes just what Firoka proposed! She seems not to understand, or perhaps has been ordered to ignore, the fact that her trading company is just there to finance the not-for-profit events and activities, not to oust them. What seems to be emerging as Haringey's new policy is to quietly abolish the charitable aims and duties within the Palace - in other words, to continue with the Firoka plan by other means.
Save Ally Pally will not allow them to get away with it.
The stakeholder forum was also treated to an allegedly left-brainstorming "rebranding" session by a consultant with lots of Powerpoint pictures. One of his bright ideas was to show headlines saying "Palace taken over by Tesco" and "Palace transferred to Richard Branson". The room rebelled against these risible ideas - which far from being unorthodox, were the sort of thinking Haringey has been relying on for the past 30 years. Instead people reaffirmed the idea of a Palace and charity driven by principle, and if any tranferring be done it should be to the sort of trustees who already run historic buildings.
So how can anyone have any confidence in a consultation which ignores the option people preferred, and substitutes something completely different? And who in their right mind on the Board of trustees is arguing for any continued single control by a council recently declared by the Audit commission to be the worst in London, and the fourth worst in the country? Of course we don't expect the Pally to achieve independence in the next few months, but SAP has always been clear that this should be the ultimate and public objective. Ally Pally needs experienced and dedicated trustees representative of the actual beneficiaries (all London); and the Board should order the £15,000 to be spent on finding out how this can be achieved as everyone requested. Then we could say goodbye to the nightmare of the past thirty years under Haringey, and usher in a Palace of the People of which we can all be proud.
More information
When one has reluctantly had to take a local authority and the Charity Commission to the High Court, it was nice to hear, at the last Board of charity trustees meeting on 12th January, the councillors finally agreeing to abandon Haringey's mad cunning plan for Ally Pally, of which even Baldrick would be ashamed. Yes, the policy of flogging a complete landmark building, birthplace of television no less, held in trust for the people of London, to a developer, seemed finally dead - for the time being.
Andrew Gill, the acting General Manager, should be congratulated for proposing this policy be formally dumped. He also usefully proposed some alternative ways in which funds could be raised.
Exactly thirty years ago Haringey, a single, cash-strapped and failing local authority, was looney enough to take over the trusteeship from the GLC, (voluntarily - it was before the GLC was abolished), for reasons which were then, and remain unclear. The then Tory opposition opposed the takeover and warned the "dowry" was insufficient for the duties the council was taking on. But the Labour whips forced through the vote, with the single rebel being a certain Cllr Bernie Grant. The dissenters were right: Haringey Council never did and still cannot, or will not, fulfil its duty as trustee to maintain the fabric of the building and keep it accessible for the public who pay for it apart the growing areas taken over by commercial users.
Over Christmas and New Year London visitors found they were locked out from the Palm Court for whose restoration they had paid. And the lovely Victorian Theatre (seen recently in the BBC film "Margot") and historic BBC studios have been almost wrecked by leaking roofs over the Haringey years.
So now the council should be trying to find out how transfer of governance to a more suitable and viable set of trustees can be best achieved. And this is exactly what we were promised by the Board was being done, with the full involvement of interested parties and stakeholders.
In October many of these were invited to the Palace for a day by the Palace's commercial trading company manager, Rebecca Kane, to consider and debate the options. The option everyone ended up almost unanimously supporting simply proposed independence from Haringey - with an independent board of trustees, and retaining a role for a statutory Advisory committee. This option has always been one of SAP's core policies and it was gratifying that the forum came to the same conclusion.
On January 12th, Ms Kane gave a report to the Board on the forum. The independence option we had all chosen - Option 2 - was missing. Instead Ms Kane confusingly produced two new options - 2a and 2b - only developed at one table during the course of the day and therefore not included in the options seen and discussed by the whole room. Ms Kane asked the trustees to pay £15,000 for KMPG to advise on how to achieve these new options, which keep a role for Haringey. Her report, and a comment of one of the trustees, Cllr Hare, seemed to assume that the objectives and activities of the trading company and the charity are identical, and therefore could be merged. She even seemed to suggest giving a 125-year-lease of the Palace to the trading company, which would leave none of the Palace left for visitors and the charitable purposes just what Firoka proposed! She seems not to understand, or perhaps has been ordered to ignore, the fact that her trading company is just there to finance the not-for-profit events and activities, not to oust them. What seems to be emerging as Haringey's new policy is to quietly abolish the charitable aims and duties within the Palace - in other words, to continue with the Firoka plan by other means.
Save Ally Pally will not allow them to get away with it.
The stakeholder forum was also treated to an allegedly left-brainstorming "rebranding" session by a consultant with lots of Powerpoint pictures. One of his bright ideas was to show headlines saying "Palace taken over by Tesco" and "Palace transferred to Richard Branson". The room rebelled against these risible ideas - which far from being unorthodox, were the sort of thinking Haringey has been relying on for the past 30 years. Instead people reaffirmed the idea of a Palace and charity driven by principle, and if any tranferring be done it should be to the sort of trustees who already run historic buildings.
So how can anyone have any confidence in a consultation which ignores the option people preferred, and substitutes something completely different? And who in their right mind on the Board of trustees is arguing for any continued single control by a council recently declared by the Audit commission to be the worst in London, and the fourth worst in the country? Of course we don't expect the Pally to achieve independence in the next few months, but SAP has always been clear that this should be the ultimate and public objective. Ally Pally needs experienced and dedicated trustees representative of the actual beneficiaries (all London); and the Board should order the £15,000 to be spent on finding out how this can be achieved as everyone requested. Then we could say goodbye to the nightmare of the past thirty years under Haringey, and usher in a Palace of the People of which we can all be proud.
More information
Tags for Forum Posts: Ally Pally
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on
-
I'm puzzled this doesn't seem to appear on the website of the Save Ally Pally (SAP) Campaign. Though nobody doubts the commitment and sincerity of SAP members, they are not the only people who care passionately about Alexandra Palace and want to see it prosper and flourish. And many of SAP's views can be one-sided and not always helpful.
And I don't just mean helpful to the Council.
For a number of years I've observed the goings-on at Alexandra Palace. I was a Trustee for one year, which was enough for me to agree with the general view that existing Governance arrangements need substantial reform. But agreement about a problem doesn't mean consensus on the solution.
I also wish everyone could focus on the present and future. I don't mean forgetting or refusing to learn from the past. Of course, it's fascinating to retell old stories - from Egyptian Palm trees and Carrara marble to Charles Adje's foolish Firoka licence. I wasn't aware Bernie Grant was a lone rebel when the Council took over Ally Pally. Perhaps Bernie also opposed subsequent overspends on the rebuilding - although I don't recall this.
But none of this past or even recent history alters the constraints the Council and Trust operate under. Not least the fact that huge buildings devour huge amounts of money. This is real money; and currently a fair chunk of Council Taxpayers' money. Not a "myth" as SAP claims.
Then, crucially, Alexandra Palace is governed by Act of Parliament. Significant change in who governs Ally Pally would need the law to be amended.
I also think it's extremely unfair to pillory Rebecca Kane, Managing Director of Alexandra Palace Trading Company. Both she and Andrew Gill, Interim General Manager of the Trust, work under and to the Alexandra Palace Board, chaired by Cllr Pat Egan.
Save Ally Pally and many others oppose the involvement by Haringey Council and councillors. But while that's the legal framework, critics should criticise councillors. They are the ones who should have to explain and justify their actions and decisions to the public.
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
