Minutes:
The Chair, in asking for a brief introduction to the report, and in response to comments of Councillor Hare, advised that it was not the intention of the Board to go over previous comments in relation CUFOS and other issues previously discussed.
The General Manager informed the meeting that at a meeting of the Board on 27 March 2006 the Board had resolved at minute AP058 (iv – vi) to place notices in the Palace building and throughout the Park to comply with sec. 36(6) of the Charities Act 1993. The notices indicated that the trustees had resolved to engage in a 125-year lease with the selected investment partner and was seeking further public representation on that decision. A copy of the notice was attached at Appendix 1.The notices were placed on 28th March. The notices invited written public representation, addressed to the General Manager, to be received no later than 28 days from the publication of the notice.
Mr Holder commented that at the relevant time a total of 23 representations had been received. However a letter from CUFOS was received late and which expressed unhappiness with the timescale for responses. Mr Holder advised that he had discussed the matter with the Trust Solicitor – Mr Harris and agreed to include a late response in the analysis and this report to the Board. Therefore 24 responses were needed to be considered, sub-divide as:
19 focussing on CUFOS
3 in respect of specialist television and radio organisations, focussing on the studios;
1 from the Alexandra Palace and Park Conservation Area Advisory Committee;
1 from the Hornsey Historical Society.
CUFOS
Mr Holder advised that the 19 received in respect of CUFOS all focused on the role played by the organisation within the community. The content of the 18 originally received was replicated in the late document received and written on behalf of the trustees of CUFOS. A copy of this and the supporting letters was at Appendix 2. The report focused on that last letter but recognised that it was supported by the 18 others.
Mr Holder summarised the points made on behalf of CUFOS as follows:
* a loss to the community if it were unable to continue beyond the expiry date of its current lease in March 2011;
* the building should be removed from the footprint subject to the 125-year lease;
alternatively;
* consideration of an extension to the existing lease now.
Mr Holder also advised that the Statutory Advisory Committee had also spent some time discussing this matter and had already provided its advice to the board of trustees. In considering that advice the Board sought the comments of its Solicitor. Mr Holder commented that those were recorded in the minutes of the meeting of 11th April and quoted as follows:
“Mr. Harris responded that his advice to the Board was that it was for the current occupier, CUFOS, to negotiate a lease with the new landlord in 2011 after the expiry of the existing lease. The legal advisers to CUFOS had recommended to CUFOS a short lease outside the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 and it was now up to them to negotiate a new lease if they wish to continue to occupy the premises post 2011.
In response to further points of clarification Mr. Harris advised that the Board , if it so wished, could indicate a preference to continuing a community use but should not be imposing a requirement such as desired by the Advisory Committee. It would also be inappropriate for the Board to add this as a requirement at this late stage in the process of negotiation.
The Chair then summarised and the Board:
RESOLVED
That in respect of the request of the Advisory Committee about the CUFOS lease arrangements the Board expresses a preference to the investment partner to a continuing community usage of the premises currently occupied by CUFOS upon expiry of the lease in 2011. “
Television Studios
Mr Holder then outlined three responses received from organisations operating in the television and radio heritage sphere. These were:
The British Vintage Wireless Society (Appendix 3)
British Vintage Wireless & Television Museum (Appendix 4)
Alexandra Palace Television Group (Appendix 5)*
Mr Holder advised that Appendix 5 also had a petition attached. The letter claimed that in the order of 2000 signatures were contained therein but an analysis shows it is actually 1593. A copy of a single page of the petition was attached to Appendix 5.
Mr Holder then advised that each of these organisations has made a number of points about the history of the studios and how these should be preserved. Assumptions about the content of the lease were made but the conclusions drawn were erroneous. The Heads of Terms for the lease as drafted and agreed provided for the creation of a “shell and core” television museum. This arrangement would be in place for three years to allow the development of the area by interested groups. If after the three year period the space was not used for the purpose of a museum then the rights would revert to the investment partner to find alternative uses.
Alexandra Park and Palace Conservation Area Advisory Committee
Mr Holder advised that a letter representing the views of the Alexandra Park and Palace Conservation Area Advisory Committee was attached at Appendix 6. The letter was summarised as:
questioning the legality of the trustees making a decision to lease, confirming that a copy of the representation has been sent to the Charity Commission urging them “to intervene and carry out an enquiry to determine the lawfulness of what you propose.
* raises issues on the fabric of the building based on their understanding of what the Firoka Group’s proposals are;
* comments on the contents of the building which “would be entirely demolished as part of Firoka’s proposals,”
The letter then lists what is considered most important and define these as the studios, the theatre and the organ.
* makes claim that the proposals include new buildings in areas adjacent to the Palace;
* claims that increased use of the building “.. Will have serious detrimental effect on public access to green space, wildlife and the environment generally.”
Mr Holder advised that many of the comments contained in this letter were ill-informed. He commented that the trustees had the power to lease the whole or part or parts of the building for purposes consistent with the objects of the charity. It was the Charity Commission that sponsored the amending legislation to provide the unambiguous power to lease. Further there were no known proposals to build any structure[s] in areas adjacent to the Palace. Likewise there is no support for the view that parts of the historic fabric or facilities would be entirely demolished.
The proposals on which Firoka was selected as the preferred investment partner were around the public recreational use and retention of the historically important facilities. To implement any changes the necessary planning applications[s] would need to be made and it is at this stage that English Heritage and other conservation bodies will be consulted.
Hornsey Historical Society
The letter received from the Hornsey Historical Society attached at Appendix 7 refers to and endorses the views expressed by the Conservation Area Advisory Committee. It further comments that a requirement must be placed on the investment partner in relation to the studios. In this respect it is replicating the views expressed by the three specialist television and wireless groups referred to above.
The Chair asked if there were any comments or views.
Councillor Hare, in relation to CUFOS, advised that in his views the Trustees had the opportunity to think about the CUFOS building in terms of its future and the need for community use continuing after the expiry of the lease. It would be the only way to ensure continued community use by guaranteeing the CUFOS operation and if this was not done and CUFOS not protected then CUFOS would not be able to maybe afford rents set by Firoka after 2011 when its lease expired.
The Board sought the Trust Solicitors advice on Cllr. Hare’s comments and Mr Harris responded that it was not the role of this Board or this Charity to further the interests or protect another Charity and that the Charity Commission would also agree that advice.
Mr Liebeck commented that the CUFOS building was a benefit to the Community and it could be viewed that the Firoka Group Development did not view community usage as an essential element. The Statutory Advisory Committee had expressed its concerns at the need for the Board to take account of the CUFOS building and had specifically requested that the Board consider the issue, and secure its position.
Councillors Egan and Peacock both sought clarification as regards how CUFOS had found itself in the position it was now in, and how the matter would be negotiated after the lease expiry 2011. Councillor Egan particularly commented that it was rather late in day for such a campaign to be launched given how long the process had been going on for – some 2 years or so. The General Manager advised that the footprint subject to the negotiations with the Firoka Group had been the entire area to which the wider powers of leasing applied with the only exception being the through road. In this respect advice from the legal advisers to the team was also necessary.
Ms Kimber also advised that in terms of the current negotiations of the Heads of Terms it had been clear from the outset that the whole of the footprint was being let and that if Firoka was approached now in terms of the CUFOS issue after lengthy negotiations then in a sense the moral high ground would have been lost and that this could drag out the process further, and even jeopardise the position the Board now found itself in.
Both Councillor Hare and Mr Liebeck commented that the area occupied by CUFOS was of no obvious interest to Firoka and that the Board should at every opportunity, assist in ensuring that CUFOS were secure.
Mr Tarpey advised that having listened to the debate it was the case that the process had been embarked upon some two years previous for the future greater good of the Palace. He stated that he found it interesting that at a very late stage the CUFOS issue had arisen and that there had been no mention of or arguments put forward by any Councillor or other representatives during the last 2 years, until approx 2/3 months ago. In his view it was too late to start further negotiations.
In view of the comments expressed the Chair felt that it would be of benefit to have further discussions with Firoka and the Board of Trustees in respect of CUFOS.
Mr Harris advised the Board if it were minded, should pass a resolution in the following terms:
That having considered carefully the detailed written representations to the notice under Section 36(6) of the Charities Act 1993, the advice of officers and having received legal advice,
that in respect of the 1 general and 2 specific representations:
a. the Trustees of Alexandra Palace having since 1995 been progressing matters on the basis of their intention to grant a long lease of the development footprint reject the representation that they withdraw their intention to grant a long lease. and
b. the Trustees of Alexandra Palace reject the representations that
(i) the building presently let to CUFOS until March 2011 be removed from the area proposed to be let to Firoka and
(ii) the term held by CUFOS be extended
but that the representation received that the use of the CUFOS building should continue as a community use be put by the General Manager to Firoka during the current negotiations for the grant of a lease.
Councillor Hare advised that such a resolution, if adopted would be dissented by himself, Cllrs Beacham and Rainger. He also commented that in his view the whole process had been driven through with very little opportunity to consider views of local residents or interested parties.
Councillor Egan sought clarification as to when Councillor Hare had in fact become a Board Member.
The Chair commented that whilst he had no issue in respect of dissention he wished to point out that the Board had been in existence for a number of years and that only very recently had the vacancies be taken up by the Liberal Democrat Group. The Chair advised that Councillor Hare had had numerous opportunities to sit on the Board since it embarked upon this process and therefore in his view he could not use the points he had just made as an excuse for the Board failing to engage. The issue had been also raised and discussed at Full Council and at 2 Leader’s Conferences and at no point had such comments been expressed by Councillor Hare. The Chair stated that in having his comments recorded it was a fact that for many years the Palace had cost the Council considerably and that the Council through delegation to the Board was attempting to bring back into use the Palace.
Mr Harris commented that as a factual account in 2003 the Charity Commission had given its intention to make a 2004 order and that no significant representations had been made at that time and certainly none that related to CUFOS. He referred to the information from the TV Group’s letter as appended – which stated this notice. It was also the case that when the two separate development proposals were considered and their proposal advertised at the Palace in January 2006 no comments were received from any person in relation to CUFOS.
Councillor Hare commented that in respect of the TV studios and representations he felt that the comment s detailed did not do justice as to the concerns and historic significance of the Studios and the fact that these were listed some 10 years previous. The studios had considerable heritage value and that it was the birth place of television, and there was therefore a need to ensure preservation and enhancement of this area of the Palace. Councillor Hare distributed a booklet he had purchased that detailed this importance. The area represented 5% of the footprint and that that area should preserved and developed by the Firoka Group. It was as significant to the heritage of the Country as the code breaking at Bletchley Park, and the Iron Bridge. This was a fundamental point of significant importance, and that the studios could in fact be demolished and the space used for other unknown purposes.
Councillor Rainger, in sharing concerns expressed commented that the petition as shown in the appendices should be supported.
In response to comments Mr Holder advised that as yet there were no detailed plans from the Firoka Group, and nor would there be until such time that the proposed lease had been exchanged. There was nothing to suggest that the studios would be demolished and that issues such as public access and health/safety needed to be looked at. It was wrong to suggest that there were any plans in existence or proposals to demolish the studios.
In response to further points from Councillor Hare Mr Holder advised that there were concepts of creating further floors within the existing structure but there was considerable misinformation as regards to what will actually be put there and at no time had Firoka given indications of what it would and would not do, apart from outlined concepts as advertised in the early part of January 2006 which had been on public display. Once the contract process had been completed and the contracts signed the Firoka Group would then commence the phased development and would seek planning consents through the Local Authority. Mr Holder further advised that should planning consents not be given then at that point the Firoka Group would then look for alternatives. Mr Holder stressed that the Firoka Group were investing some £56 million to bring the Place into use by the public.
In response to concerns of Councillor Peacock as to when the planning consents were brought to the Council’s Planning Application Sub-Committee and the requirement to declare interests the Chair advised that clarification would be sought with the Council’s Monitoring Officer in respect of the issue but this body was not the body to grant planning consents.
In response to questions from Councillor Hare Mr Holder advised that only after the contract had been signed by the Firoka Group and therefore guaranteed would the Firoka Group enter into negotiations with either interested parties concerned about the TV studios.
Mr Liebeck commented that given the Firoka Group’s previous track record in respect of other commercial developments such as Oxford City FC and its selling off of the stadium after its acquisition he did not believe that there would be opportunities to negotiate post completion and that interested parties in both CUFOS and the TV studios should hold their breath and await developments.
The Chair, in noting the comments expressed, summarised and it was:
RESOLVED
That having considered carefully the detailed written representations to the notice under Section 36(6) of the Charities Act 1993, the advice of officers and having received legal advice,
that in respect of the 1 general and 2 specific representations:
a. the Trustees of Alexandra Palace having since 1995 been progressing matters on the basis of their intention to grant a long lease of the development footprint reject the representation that they withdraw their intention to grant a long lease. and
b. the Trustees of Alexandra Palace reject the representations that
(i) the building presently let to CUFOS until March 2011 be removed from the area proposed to be let to Firoka and
(ii) the term held by CUFOS be extended
but that the representation received that the use of the CUFOS building should continue as a community use be put by the General Manager to Firoka during the current negotiations for the grant of a lease
Councillors Beacham, Hare and Rainger asked that their dissent be recorded against the decision.
NOTED