Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Campaign to Turn Alexandra Palace into Industrial and Provident Society
A new community group called The People's Palace is looking into a possible ‘community buy-out' of London's Alexandra Palace.
Haringey resident Sally Wood, who leads the group and works for a youth volunteering programme, wants to see the local community become more connected to the Grade II listed Victorian building.
Read more here.
Haringey resident Sally Wood, who leads the group and works for a youth volunteering programme, wants to see the local community become more connected to the Grade II listed Victorian building.
Read more here.
Tags for Forum Posts: Ally Pally
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by matt on
-
Oh but it's The People's Palace John. Sounds like a proposal for a very large Chinese restaurant.
But really, it's a good idea to look at all options for Ally Pally. The council after all have seriously lacked imagination thus far. So in short I support Sally Wood's motivation to find a solution.
-
Permalink Reply by John D on
-
We believe that the combined talent of London's people can develop some incredible uses for this building.
Personally, I would prefer credible uses, but either way, what uses ?
There are countless alternatives that are never discussed.'
Such as ? Discuss them.
The trust that currently runs the palace believes any group would need £35m to renovate the palace and grounds, but Wood believes there are more inventive ways to improve them that do not involve such an outlay.
Suggest some and cost them.
But Wood said she didn't believe the figure of £35m was justified.
I agree, - having seen the state of the place, I think it would be much more.
I think the state of the Palace buildings is an absolute disgrace - The floors of the Victorian Theatre and The Indoor Bowling Green are dangerous and unfit to walk on; the ceilings and plasterwork are wrecked.
I know of two groups who would be interested in renting space in the Palace - The Colin Chapman (Lotus ) Museum and a bunch of television fanatics who would like to restore the television studios to working order as a television museum. It's when you look at the business plan that they fall down.
I agree that Sally Wood is drawing attention to the problem, but fine words butter no parsnips.
-
-
Yes the building does look to be in a very serious state and until a proper survey is done of its condition any figure could be thrown around. Serious money, a clear and concise vision and real leadership are needed. God only knows where all that's going to come from, especially in the current perilous state of our economy.
Three things going for Ally Pally; it's view, surrounding parkland and plenty of space to play with. The use of space within needs to take advantage of the first two points. The ice rink currently doesn't.
I agree a TV museum is needed but that is only a small part of the space. Regional development monies and a lottery bid are probably the only serious contenders for cash right now. Cities in the North & north-east have done well out of the big vision approach to lottery bids over the last few years, particularly Newcastle.
-
Permalink Reply by Clive Carter on
-
A proper survey A Building Survey was made by Sturge King and another specialist firm in 2006. The brief for this document was to put AP into a "Developer Shell" state. I asked for a copy of this document which, like everything else to do with AP, tended to be treated with extreme secrecy. It took three months to extract a copy from Haringey Legal Services with the most ridiculous excuses you could imagine in order to keep the delay going as long as possible.
When they ran out of excuses and it was finally supplied to me, it was on the condition (that I had not agreed to) that it was for my personal use only. This is the kind of idle, worthless bluster that I have come to expect from Haringey's deeply wretched Legal Services. They imagine that I (and the public in general) are not familiar with the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act (2000). Even when they knew they had no lawful excuse not to provide this document, they attempted bluff and in order to frustrate its further disemination. The Act provides for no such restrictions whatsoever.
If you would like a copy please send me your email address. The public, who pay through the nose for this kind of document, have a right to see it. I think you might find it interesting reading. Probably the main thrust of what the writers said, and which Haringey wanted to hide from the public – is that the building is strongly made and fundamentally structurally sound. Even though lots of maintenance is needed, the summary is somewhat at variance with the picture that Haringey painted.
Kassam's Firoka would hardly have been interested otherwise.
The council has engaged in serial deceit on a grand scale over Alexandra Palace. Haringey has burnt perhaps £100 million over AP and they have been a terrible steward. The present Trust Board, dominated by councillors, is chronically dysfunctional.
The first step to a brighter future must be an independent Trust Board, with perhaps one or two seats reserved for representatives of the Borough in which this building unfortunately finds itself.
-
Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on
-
Yes, please, Clive. I'd very much appreciate emailed copies of the Sturge King, and second report.
Could I please also ask you to send me copies of the emails you refer to - from Haringey officers, including our Legal Services.
Clearly, there are documents which councillors and other members of various bodies have restricted access to. Examples include documents which contain information which is of possible commercial value.
But I have never come across the Council agreeing to release information to a member of the public, while at the same time trying to impose the condition you describe.
-
-
Alan,
Firstly, I have to say I was disappointed to watch you vote in January to approve the last scandalous set of accounts for the Trust, which covered the Firoka occupation period and which lumbered our Charity with an extra debt of £3 million. This debt was largely attributable to the Licence-to-Firoka which was promoted by the current Head of Finance at Haringey council.
Should you have signed our Charity's accounts in January with a debt of £3m, without seeing Walklate 2 and without taking into account Walklate 1 (i.e. the Head of Finance’s role as Chair and responsible for the bad deal)? I seem to remember that voting over our Charity’s Accounts ran strictly along party political lines.
Do you still call, as you impressively did in October, for the Cabinet member for Resources to step down over Walklate 1? When will the public be able to see the Walklate 2 Report? This has been in gestation for a long while. Is it not about time that it is finished and published?
Can you confirm that in the most recent Board meeting, you actually opposed the “request” to the council to relieve our Trust of the (bogus) debt and that you wished to “leave the debt as it is”? In this action, were you acting as a councillor or as a Trustee? Did the Trust Solicitor acquaint you, in the induction as a new Trustee, with the law of Trust including the bit about Breach of Trust?
The “debt” is largely and more accurately, a wrongful claim for expenses. This writing off the bogus debt is likely to have been decided by the power-brokers in the council many weeks ago.
I wonder if you know anything about the absurd and unwarranted threats of libel action made against Harringay-On-Line? Recently, I endeavoured to link a past Trust Chair (and Haringey’s current Cabinet Member for Resources) with the practical effects of the Licence-to-Firoka and also with the council’s intention formally to relieve the Trust of the (bogus) debt (i.e. to sweep under the carpet the huge loss brought about as a consequence of the Licence).
I am trying to find out who exactly lies behind those cowardly menaces and would be grateful if you could supply any information. In the meantime, I hope you’ll agree with me when I say that whoever is behind it, is no real friend of democracy or of free speech and that bullying a community forum by legal threats is reprehensible.
The Building Survey document
I can understand that you, as a relatively new councillor-Trust Board member, might be unaware of the AP Building Survey. But as an Alexandra Trust Board member, you should be entitled to at least as much access to documents as a member of the public, especially as you are of the council majority group.
In this context, I would like to provide a relevant example of how the Alexandra Palace Trust Board is dysfunctional: one Trustee of the minoriity group, was so frustrated in obtaining a relevant document, that they were advised by the Chief Executive of the Council (who was trying to be helpful) to apply to the council under the Freedom of Information Act, i.e. the same access that an ordinary member of the public is entitled. Is this how our Charity should operate? Who is in charge?
You ought to be entitled to a copy of the AP building survey as an AP Trustee. The general manger Mr. David Loudfoot should be able to help. In order to assist, I identify it exactly:
Building Surveyor’s Report On Condition,
Developer Shell Costs and Future Maintenance Costs
on Alexandra Palace
etc.
as at September 2005
King Sturge LLP
Robinson Low Francis LLP
NB. There are not two reports. There are two firms of chartered surveyors contributing to a single report of 80 pages. If and when you see it, I would urge you to bear in mind that the whole report was written to the private (secret) brief from the council, that AP be made to a Developer Shell.
As to the eventual release of the building survey, the emails between me and Haringey’s dissembling Legal Services department, extended over three months. I have forwarded you some to give you a flavour. Disclosure of the building survey was something that they were clearly going to some lengths to delay or prevent altogether, largely through foot-dragging. When the excuses ran out, a final bluff was issued in order to try to frustrate wider dissemination in the covering letter (paper, not an email):
"the document was prepared by two firms of property consultants for the Charitable Trust. The document was provided in confidence. However the authors have agreed to disclosure by the Council on the basis that this is for the purpose of provision of the information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 only and that the document should not be used for other purposes".
Some of these aspects are further reasons why politics and politicians need to be moved out of the AP Trust Board and replaced with independent Trustees who are expert, competent, long-term, interested, dedicated and professional.
-
Permalink Reply by John McMullan on
-
This was an enjoyable lunchtime read. One comment, a £3 million debt has been incurred that accounting-wise must be placed somewhere. The council can place it where they have, or somewhere else. What about child services? I bet they have some money left over after not paying Sharon Shoesmith her severance pay.
-
-
Well, Clive, that’s how it goes. Sometimes I agree with you. So you'll find this “impressive”. Sometimes we will disagree. And no doubt you'll think it “scandalous”.
I make such decisions after listening to, reading and reflecting on a range of views. Including your own, of course. But crucially, the professional advice available.
It’s known as thinking for myself. I’m sure lots of people see this as a bad habit. But it's one I have absolutely no intention of breaking.
As you’ve spotted, I often tend to agree with my Labour Party colleagues – though by no means all of them. This is likely to be due to shared principles and values; and because we want things to move in broadly the same direction.
You know perfectly well how I voted at the Alexandra Palace Board meeting on 19 March. But, for the record, yes, I opposed asking the Council to reconsider how the debt is treated for accounting purposes. As a minority of one, I disagreed with my Labour colleagues on this. (I’m unsure if this makes it more or less “scandalous”.) And yes, I voted as a Trustee; which as you well know, is what I am required to do.
You asked about “menaces” and “threats of libel action” in connection with a posting you made on Hol. I made no threats or menaces. But I did raise the possibility with Hugh and Liz, that either you or HoL might be vulnerable due to a post you had made. It included what appeared to me, an implied allegation regarding Cllr Charles Adje, which to the best of my knowledge had no basis whatsoever in fact.
Hugh removed both your post and mine, answering some of your points.
You ask me if I still think Cllr Adje should step down? Indeed I do. And not just from the “cabinet” but altogether as a councillor. This is not simply because of the Firoka Licence, but other errors of judgement including the Welbourne Centre issue.
It’s always ‘open season’ on elected councillors - whether me, Cllr Adje, or anyone else. That’s understandable; it goes with the ‘job’. But can we please agree some ground rules about fairness and about fact? Let’s have criticism based on factual evidence and reasonable inference. Not simply insinuation and baseless inuendo.
-
-
Sally's heart is in the right place and she and I would agree about most of the goals.
But Sally has said that she wants "to work with the council" (whether the council want to work with anyone else is moot).
A firm grip of the legal, political and financial aspects is essential in understanding the size of the challenge that is posed by Haringey's inept and hopeless governance.
The council and Trust Board which they control, is not part of the solution, not even part of the problem but they are the problem! For 29 years, Haringey Council stewardship has been an unmitigated disaster and countless opportuniites have been wasted.
The one politician who had a sense of the impasse and was willing to discuss independent trustees (i.e. the former AP Chair Cllr Matt Cooke) has unfortunately moved on. No progress toward independent Trust or Trustees has been made since.
-
Permalink Reply by Rachel Fisher on
-
As I understand it the main problem with Alexandra Palace is that it was gifted to the nation by an act of parliament - through a private members bill - and any real changes to the set up require another act of parliament. Not impossible to do - but not easy - and requires all the main players to be in agreement - which from the looks of these posts doesn't seem to be the case.
I did some research into community opposition of development of historic buildings and time and again the real issue was that community groups splinter and want different things some more and some less realistic.
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
