Agenda and draft minutes

Alexandra Palace and Park Consultative Committee
Tuesday, 30th November, 2021 7.30 pm

Venue: Transmitter Hall, Alexandra Palace Way, Wood Green, London N22 7AY

Contact: Nazyer Choudhury, Principal Committee Co-ordinator  020 8489 3321 Email:

No. Item




Apologies were received from Councillor Dana Carlina and Dick Hudson.



Members of the Committee are invited to disclose any interest they may have in any of the items appearing on this agenda.


None were declared.


Urgent Business

The Chair will consider the admission of any late items of Urgent Business.  (Late items will be considered under the agenda item where they appear.  New items will be dealt with under item 8 below).


There was no urgent business.





i)          To approve the minutes of the Consultative Committee held on 4 October 2021.


ii)         To note the minutes of the Joint Statutory Advisory Committee and Consultative Committee held on 4 October 2021.


iii)        To note the draft minutes of the meeting of the Alexandra Palace and Park Board held on 11 October 2021 (to follow)



Additional documents:


Ms Rachael Macdonald had stated that she would not be a member as noted on page 2 of the minutes.

Ms Annette Baker was not present on the list of attendees.

At the last Alexandra Palace TV Group meeting, Ms Rachael Macdonald was appointed as Deputy.

RESOLVED: That, subject to the above changes, the minutes of the Consultative Committee meeting on 4 October 2021 be agreed as a correct record of the meeting.

The Committee considered the minutes of the Joint Statutory Advisory Committee and Consultative Committee held on 4 October 2021.

The Committee noted that Mr Duncan Neill needed to be listed as present at the meeting as a Member of the Consultative Committee (not the Statutory Advisory Committee). The Committee also noted that Ms Liz Richardson and Councillor Scott Emery had sent their apologies for the meeting.

Mr Jacob O’Callaghan’s comments on 7a (traffic enforcement) should also include thanking AP Staff for taking prompt action in relation to joyriders which were a problem and he appreciated that urgent action needed to be taken. 

In relation to point I (Park Lighting), the action was to be taken by Ms Natalie Layton and the issue had been placed on the agenda for 13 December 2021 on the Alexandra Palace and Park Board.

On Point J (Black History Month), a reference should be changed to read ‘Si Grant’s’ name as ‘Cy Grant’.

RESOLVED: That the Joint Statutory Advisory Committee and Consultative Committee held on 4 October 2021 be noted.

The Committee considered the draft minutes of the meeting of the Alexandra Palace and Park Board held on 11 October 2021.

In relation to the Mast Lighting Policy, it appeared that the report did not certify that the item had been subject to consultation to the Consultative Committee or the Statutory Advisory Committee or with other interested groups.

The Committee noted that the Board would be happy for the item to be brought to the Consultative Committee for future consultation as policies and issues were regularly reviewed. 

RESOLVED: That the draft minutes of the meeting of the Alexandra Palace and Park Board held on 11 October 2021 be noted.



CEO'S REPORT pdf icon PDF 405 KB

To note the update.


The Committee commented that:

·      In relation to the major events being discussed on page 20 of the agenda papers, the times of the events would be included in future reports. Independent noise consultants are employed for large events with amplified music to monitor sound levels and also monitor in response to complaints during the events.

·      Congratulations were in order regarding the Theatre hosting the BBC Earthshot Awards.  In response to questioning about the Earthshot team’s donation of trees and shrubs, it was noted that the Park Manager had approved the acquisition.

·      It was important to acknowledge the Green Heritage Site Accreditation. 

·      The community payback scheme was working very well.

·      The Committee noted the amount of rubbish (100 tonnes) collected on site since 1 April 2021.

·      The festoon lighting applied for as part of the Outdoor Beer Garden Improvements planning application would have involved fixing to the historic fabric.

·      The lighting around Dukes Avenue had not received any recent complaints. The Committee noted that the bus stop lights had been dealt with. Any issues should be noted with the location and referred accordingly to see if remedial work could be done.

·      Some of the lighting in the park was not working. This was covered in the report. Attempts were underway to get remedial fixes in place. As this was potentially quite costly, a solar solution was being trialled. In the meantime, feedback on what was and what was not working was useful and attempts would be made to fix any lighting,but attempting to make old infrastructure work creates additional problems and delays in fixing.

·      The Salix lighting project scheme was an interest free loan, calculated on payback over a period of time. This loan is paid back from the money saved on energy usage. . The total cost was around £500,000 and the payback would be under five years. However, the savings would take a longer period if energy costs kept going up

·      The use of weedkiller had been reduced. The Park team had been challenged to come up with a solution avoiding its use. Manual removal of weeds is not taking place.  The Trust welcomes volunteers to assist in controlling the weeds Members of the public will need to get used to seeing more weeds on site and are encouraged to consider them to be pavement plants.

·      The provision of creative learning had changed during the coronavirus crisis. There had been a reduction in terms of volume of beneficiaries reached but there was a greater need for a targeted and wider range of delivery methods. On future funding steams, the team continue to apply for appropriate funding to support effective delivery and impact in combination with paid for activities.  

·      The family area had been congested during the Palace’s Fireworks event and the speakers appeared to be loud for a family area. This would be taken into consideration by the team for future planning. Some of the congestion at the event was due to the wi-fi outage that had occurred as  ...  view the full minutes text for item 53.



To consider the recommendation to pilot a new Open Forum

Additional documents:


The meeting heard a variety of views including that:

·           Some members were in favour of the proposals in the paper as it was evident that the current structure of the Committee was not the most representative group of residents in the borough and not the best way of representing stakeholders. However, it would be useful to confirm what the objectives of the forum actually were.  In the past public meetings such as the licensing proposal in 2017 had worked well with members of the public giving and discussion giving   their views. One of the strengths of the Committee was that it had Board trustees as members. 

·           There appeared to be a risk that the Committee may become a question and answer session and this may not be productive.

·           The reports, such as CEO reports, being submitted to the Committee three to four times a year was a good way to keep up to date and the Committees would like to see this practice continue for the open forum.

·           It would be useful if the regular routine reports, which were available on the Council’s website, were also made available to anybody who wanted them on the AP Website perhaps by linking to the Council’s committee pages.

·           Although the report considered the need for more community proportionate representation, it did not appear to represent the beneficiaries of the Charity. There were specific matters which needed to be referred to the Statutory Advisory Committee by law and some matters to the Consultative Committee due to the Councils constitution. There were many items that were put before the Board that did not come before either the Statutory Advisory or the Consultative Committees. The Board advertised any proposed decision one week before the meeting. The proposed forum stated that the public needed to provide two weeks’ notice before submitting a question, but it would not be technically possible to do this as the papers to the Board were only published one week before. It was clarified that only items for including on the agenda should be requested with 2 weeks’ notice.

·           The proposal had only been published for about a week. The legal advice stated that there were no issues with the proposals for the pilot as long as the structure was unchanged, but it appeared that the proposal would change the structure. The proposals should not be agreed until a specially convened meeting of the Consultative Committee so that all interested parties including people from different organisations could attend it and provide their suggestions.

·           It was possible to consider not agreeing to abolish the Consultative Committee but still have an open forum and have a positive pilot scheme. The forum could meet two times a year. This would help to examine how well the proposed processes would work.

·           A discussion needed to be held on what an open forum would look like, how people would be brought into the conversation and a meeting could be held regarding the processes of the open forum.

·           It  ...  view the full minutes text for item 54.




There were none.


Items of urgent business


There were none.



9 March 2022 – Joint Statutory Advisory Committee and Consultative Committee


9 March 2022. Meeting of the Joint Statutory Advisory Committee and the Consultative Committee.