Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
FIROKA. Out of Alexandra Palace. FOR GOOD.
The following press release was issued yesterday via the Council-controlled Alexandra Palace Trust Board. For those that care about the most important building in this Borough, this news is simply good:
============================================
The Alexandra Palace Charitable Trust has received notification from
Firoka Ltd that the developer is no longer interested in being involved in the future of Alexandra Palace.
This comes after over a year of negotiations between the Trust and Developer.
Matt Cooke, Chair of Trustees, said: 'As this option for moving forward closes I am determined that we will grasp the opportunity this now gives us to explore new ways of realising our objective of securing Ally Pally's future in an exciting and sustainable way.
'I will be taking proposals to the next meeting of the Board which will be about that future and learning the lessons of recent months, years and decades. The Trustees will now focus on reviewing the various options open to them in order to ensure that the charitable objectives of public resort and recreation are maintained. We will take this opportunity to ask the difficult questions and seek realistic proposals for the Palace's future.
'During this period of negotiation we have not been idle and a tremendous amount of work has been done in reinvigorating our trading company culminating in the appointment of a new Managing Director last week. This work gives us a solid foundation for the future - a future which could be tremendously exciting for the Palace.
'Local people and beyond see pure potential in the Palace, and we have a duty to Haringey and all of London to secure and realise this tremendous asset's future.'
============================================
The Alexandra Palace Charitable Trust has received notification from
Firoka Ltd that the developer is no longer interested in being involved in the future of Alexandra Palace.
This comes after over a year of negotiations between the Trust and Developer.
Matt Cooke, Chair of Trustees, said: 'As this option for moving forward closes I am determined that we will grasp the opportunity this now gives us to explore new ways of realising our objective of securing Ally Pally's future in an exciting and sustainable way.
'I will be taking proposals to the next meeting of the Board which will be about that future and learning the lessons of recent months, years and decades. The Trustees will now focus on reviewing the various options open to them in order to ensure that the charitable objectives of public resort and recreation are maintained. We will take this opportunity to ask the difficult questions and seek realistic proposals for the Palace's future.
'During this period of negotiation we have not been idle and a tremendous amount of work has been done in reinvigorating our trading company culminating in the appointment of a new Managing Director last week. This work gives us a solid foundation for the future - a future which could be tremendously exciting for the Palace.
'Local people and beyond see pure potential in the Palace, and we have a duty to Haringey and all of London to secure and realise this tremendous asset's future.'
Tags for Forum Posts: Firoka, ally Pally
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by matt on
-
That is good news. Lets hope the wider community can now build up trust with the Trust.
-
Permalink Reply by Hugh on
-
Thanks for the update Clive. Do you have any sense as to whether the trust will is now likely to take a more consultative approach or might we be returning to another struggle?
-
Permalink Reply by Clive Carter on
-
.
Hi Hugh,
The Trust has been altogether too secretive in the past and has paid only lip-service to community involvement. As often as not, their Board meetings go into Exempt Items part way through (i.e. press and public are told to leave and they have security guards available to enforce this).
The two committees which are supposed formally to represent local opinion to the Board (the Consultative and Statutory Advisory Committees) are treated with disdain and largely disregarded, although there are signs these bodies are becoming impatient with the near-contempt with which the Council treats them.
The attitude of the Council, that they own and control AP, is going to take a long time to recede, I fear, as it is deeply ingrained in Board members and Council Officers. Not only is it our money that has gone into AP (£100m since 1980) but the owners are actually ... us. The Council merely mismanage it on our behalf and the sooner they are removed from the Trusteeship, the better for all concerned.
By the way, the Trust is actually a Charity, of which you, me and everyone are beneficiaries. The public could be forgiven for thinking otherwise because the Council treats AP as its own private property.
The struggle is not over. The final defeat of the shady Firoka deal happened because hundreds of local people got together and basically said, up with this we will not put! The petition is still up and running (1,200+ signatures) and please note that, the petition refers to the possible sale to (any) property developer.
This brings me to the next point: the declared policy since about 1995 has been for the 'holistic' sale of the whole palace, for (utterly) commercial purposes, to a single private developer. This policy was misconceived from the start and misguided for years. Millions of taxpayers' money has been wasted in the last three years in a bonfire of legal fees, PR company fees and other 'professional' fees, all to further this fatally flawed policy. If there had been wider consultation, much of this could have been avoided, but the Council always knows best.
The Mexican stand-off between the Trust and Firoka is now over, but it does not mean that peace has broken out. What has happened could be the prelude to the opening of legal hostilities between the two sides - if Firoka have the cheek to sue the Council. Once As-Thick-as-Thieves, the two sides may yet demonstrate that there's no honour amongst thieves.
More information at:
www.saveallypally.com
and
carteruncut.blogspot.com
Best,
Clive.
-
Permalink Reply by Eddie Finnegan on
-
Very good news, Clive. And I've signed the Petition!
Better news is that since the petition is against involvement by property companies only my dream of London Concrete moving up the hill to AP is still alive and well. Remember C@APITAL = Concrete at Ally Pally Is The Answer for London.
-
-
Eddie, I was captivated by your suggestion of ready-mix concrete distribution by funicular over our Borough, involving reticulating buckets, aided by gravity and radiatating out over Haringey from the four towers of Alexandra Palace. That would keep heavy trucks off the roads! Is it too late for London Concrete to step in and make a replacement bid?!
The next press release from the Council's expensive PR spin-firm Lexington Communications could be headed: "From Casino to Concrete!"
Your capital idea shows far more flair and imagination than the Council-controlled Trust Board has exhibited over the the last decade. As Jacob O'Callaghan said, there has been a catastrophic failure of imagination about the future of OUR Palace.
The only thing the amateur trustees could envisage was selling ALL of it to a property developer (reportedly, for £1.5 million. Yes, one point five million pounds), defined in a Lease that our Council tried to keep secret from us - the true owners and beneficiaries - as long as possible.
Surely something that is a potential UNESCO World Heritage Site deserves a fate better than to be given to an asset stripper?
-
-
Thanks for that Clive. What's the game plan to get a more consultative approach from the Trust? Do just point me to a place on your site if you've already written up the info.
-
-
In the short term, us beneficiaries of the Trust (i.e. the public of north London) need to get more involved with our charity. This means lobbying councillors and doing boring things like attending the Trust Board meetings (before you're invited to leave) and the two related committees. I'll post reminders of the next meetings - or, if anyone is interested, they can join the main mailing list of SAP which has more than 200 members on a secure server.
In the penultimate press release from the PR firm Lexington the 'F' word did not appear and the word 'beneficiaries' appeared for the first time. In this weeks Lexington communication, for the first time in goodness knows how long, there were several nods to the fact that this is a charity. This is a small hopeful sign of remembering what is in fact the legal basis for the council's play-thing.
The Trust Board will soon realise as never before that they are responsible for a Charity and they will be held to account for their actions as Trustees, on behalf of us.
The Charity Commission has largely failed in their duty to monitor this Trust adequately.
In the long run, there is little prospect of progress while the Council remains as Trustee. For 27 years they have treated the whole place as their own private property and this attitude may not change, at least, not fast enough. NB. the runaway rebudiling costs in the 1980s - something for which Haringey Council was responsible but for which our Trust had to suffer.
-
-
Is there any way that the spirit of the new govt keeness on asset transfer (yes I've mentioned this bfore) might be invoked and to try and get one of two members of the public on the Trust Board?
-
-
There are one or two members of the public on the Trust Board, but they are a minority. The Council Minority Group is represented on the Trust Board, but they too are a minority. The Trust Board, along with the trading company, is controlled by the Majority Group and execute majority group policy. This is of course denied, because the Trustees are supposed to be apolitical.
I am not aware of any decision by the Trust which is contrary to Council policy on AP - this is the fundamental conflict of interest.
Others have also suggested the notion of "asset transfer" which the Govt is keen on.
The big difference with AP, is that ownership and control is deeply bound up with Charity law and Trustee law. It is this body of law that has proved deeply frustrating to the Council, in their desire to dispose of our huge asset with the least amount of attention. By the same token, it has proved a great protection of the public interest, not just public interest in this Borough, but national public interest due to the historical importance of the birthplace of television.
(Our Councillors were prepared to see the world's first television studios converted into commercial office space. Our Councillors gave permission in the Lease for a casino. These things will now probably not happen, thanks to Firoka's withdrawal.)
Remember that the action that lead to Justice Sir Jeremy Sullivan quashing the Lease, was taken against The Charity Commission, with The Trustees as First Interested party. It was clear to everyone in Court, that the Trustees (i.e. the Council) had been the driver of this sordid affair, and that was why the Judge awarded costs against the Trustees. Their conduct was apalling and the judge was scathing of them.
The stewardship of AP is fundamentally different from say, Hornsey Town Hall, which is simply owned by the Council. The only thing stopping Haringey from flogging HTH in any manner they choose is the Grade II Star Listing. They want to flog the Council car-park behind it for private development, to pay for repairs - which they should have been doing anyway. In describing this ad hoc funding arrangement, the Council uses the distasteful phrase "its the Town Hall's dowry".
The car park, would IMHO, make an excellent green park - Crouch End is especially short of open public space in that area - according to the Council's own diagram.
The Council claims to be short of funds, but always finds millions to spend where it wants to. The losses caused by the Council at AP are bigger than admitted and bigger than most of the public realise - but it is going to come out.
IMHO, public buildings have a low priority for our Council and they are careless and even reckless with them.
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
