Issue - meetings

ITEMS RAISED BY J. O’CALLAGHAN ON BEHALF OF HORNSEY HISTORICAL SOCIETY

1.Road through the Park:

 (a) please could the General Manager explain why there are no longer signs at the entrances warning that the private road through the park is closed to all commercial vehicles (other than for access and buses)

 (b) If the trustees no longer wish to enforce this ban, have funds been made available to cover the extra repairs to the road this will entail?

2. The report into the licence to Firoka (available on the council's website):

Will the trustees consider that one lesson from these events is that most ordinary Haringey councillors appointed to the Board are out of their depth (and it is unreasonable to expect them not to be) in dealing with and trying to monitor negotiations with a company such as Firoka?

3. Will the councillor/trustees consider that the governance of the charity, whose beneficiaries are the people of London, accept that trusteeship should now revert to reflecting this?

If not will they at least accept that an historic building and a local park needs regular grants, which should no longer be dressed up as "losses"?

ITEMS RAISED BY V.PALEY ON BEHALF OF THE PALACE VIEW RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION

ALEXANDRA PALACE ICE RINK

1. Estimate of how much longer it will stay open before major work expenditure forces closure;
2. A vague recollection of mention, some time ago of EU regulations which require replacement of the cooling system due to carbon omissions or some sort of pollution? Was the deadline 2010?
3. Invitation to the Save Ally Pally Group to present their proposals for keeping the ice rink open following on from (i) & (ii) above. 

ITEMS RAISED BY J. O’CALLAGHAN ON BEHALF OF HORNSEY HISTORICAL SOCIETY

1. Road through the Park:

 (a) please could the General Manager explain why there are no longer signs at the entrances warning that the private road through the park is closed to all commercial vehicles (other than for access and buses)

 (b) If the trustees no longer wish to enforce this ban, have funds been made available to cover the extra repairs to the road this will entail?

Mr O’Callaghan, in stating his questions (a) & (b), gave a brief history of the Park road in that up until the Second World War there had been no through road between Muswell Hill and Wood Green. There was no justification or requirement of the Palace to up keep the road in terms of commercial vehicle usage and there the act also did not make such provision.  Therefore, as the road was in fact a private road the only vehicles using the road should be private vehicles.  The palace should be seeking funding externally for its up keep given that commercial vehicles use the road.

In response, the General Manager – Mr Loudfoot, advised that in terms of the history it was a fact that the road at each end of the palace had been joined for the use of buses following the demise of trams. 

In terms of signage, this had been updated following the removal of the gantries and there was permanent signage now. There were no other funding streams open to the Palace for funding and maintaining the road. The budget allocation for roads and paths within the park was in the region of £50K annually.

In response to further points of clarification the Chair asked officers to report back further to the Committee, but given the nature of the issue this would not be a matter to be discussed at the away day.

Mr Tucker gave a resume of issues relating to Crystal Palace and the development issues, which in his view had a parallel to Alexandra Palace. The Chair thanked Mr Tucker for his contribution.

In response to clarification from Prof. Hudson as to the overall running costs for maintaining the palace the General Manager advised that this was in the region of £750K per annum. The General Manager clarified that this was in relation to the cost of the governance of the Charity, and maintenance of the Park, which had been estimated at £750k per annum.

The Chair also responded to the points of clarification in terms of the away day attendance by advising that in the first instance the session would be for trustees only, but that further sessions would possibly involve representatives from both the Consultative, and Advisory Committees.

NOTED

2. The report into the licence to Firoka (available on the council's website):

Will the trustees consider that one lesson from these events is that most ordinary Haringey councillors appointed to the Board are out of their depth (and it is unreasonable to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 51