Agenda and draft minutes

To receive any apologies for absence.

An apology for absence was received on behalf of Ms Hutchinson.

NOTED

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

Nil

There was no additional late business relating to the items on the agenda.

To agree the Minutes of the Advisory Committee of 31 October 2006.

The Chair asked if there were any issues of accuracy or matters arising.

Mr Aspden referred to page 2 of the minutes in relation to the CUFOS building and whether Ms Myers had any further comment in terms of the listed building auspicies.

Ms Myers advised that correspondence received from English Heritage confirmed that that the building was included within the listed building consent for the Palace as a Grade II listed building.  In response to questions the Chair commented that the lease would be up for renewal in 2011 and whether or not CUFOS remained and renewed its lease this did not affect the actual status of the building itself, and any future occupant would have to asbide by this.

The Chair asked if there were any further points of clarification.  Mr Aspden refrred to the 5^th paragraph on page 2 and the recorded comments contained. Mr Aspden felt that these comments did not entirely reflect his expressed view.  The Chair asked Mr Aspden to state what his actual sentiments had been. Mr Aspden advised in the following terms:-

“ Mr. Aspden expressed his concerns that it had been a specific request from the Committee and that it seemed not to have been taken seriously. This repeated request, where we seem to be flogging a dead horse, is being made not just on the grounds of Haringey’s planning procedures but by us as a Statutory Advisory Committee trying to fulfil its defined functions under the 1985 Act (subsequent ref Schedule I Part III 19 (iv)). He pointed out that he was aware of at least one previous such survey having been carried out (that by Oscar Faber in 1996) and that this had certainly not been accomplished in five minutes. It was important, therefore, to commission the work “up front” so as to allow sufficient time for it to be produced”.  

The Chair asked if Members had any comments.

Councillor Oatway stated that she felt that the minute entry as recorded was accurate in its content and that indeed the minutes that were produced by the Clerk for this Committee were some of the most accurate  minutes that the Authority produced.  She therefore felt that Mr Aspden’s views should be recorded as an additional comment in the minutes of this meeting rather than as an amendment to the minutes of 31 October 2006.

The Committee agreed with Councillor Oatway’s comment as a way forward.

The Chair also referred to the bottom of page 8 of the minutes in respect of Councillor Dobbie’s dissention to the vote and the subsequent discussion with Mr Aspden as to elaborating on the comments. In response to Mr Aspden’s views the Chair commented that reference to Cllr. Dobbie was  or could be read as pejorative and critical and that it may be thought  that the Committee were picking on one political side of the Committee and not the other, and that it should not be taking sides or becoming embroiled  ...  view the full minutes text for item 28.

The Chair referred to the circulated response to from the Board arising from its meeting on 14 November 2006 in relation to the resolutions of the Advisory Committee of 31 October 2006.

The Committee then deliberated on the each of the responses contained and the following is a summary of those deliberations:

Resolution (i) That in respect of the decision of the Board from its meeting of 12 September 2006 to not take any action in respect of the Advisory Committee’s recommendation of 29 August 2006 requesting that a traffic assessment is undertakenfor the entire Alexandra Palace and Park site as part of the Firoka Group’s developments, the Alexandra Palace and Park Board be requested to ensure that as part of the planning application process an overall traffic assessment of the scheme as a whole was made but not in a piecemeal fashion.; which the response from the Board was:

that, as previously stated to the Advisory Committee, in respect of their previous request to the Board that a traffic assessment is undertakenfor the entire Alexandra Palace and Park site as part of the Firoka Group’s proposals, and that the Alexandra Palace and Park Board be requested to ensure that as part of the planning application process an overall rather than piecemeal traffic assessment of the scheme as a whole be made then  the Advisory Committee be advised that this request is not within the remit of the Board to request .  It is an issue to be addressed by Firoka to the Planning authority when it makes an application for planning permission.

The comments of the Advisory Committee were:

·        That the response clearly showed that the Board had not taken account of the request by the Advisory Committee in terms of the need to ensure the traffic management assessment is of vital importance

·        That any application for planning permission would require consideration of the Advisory Committee as it would be referred to the Committee for its views prior to the Board’s consideration;

·        That there were concerns that planning applications may be ‘bounced’ on the Advisory Committee with little time for consideration though it was also viewed that applications of such magnitude were unlikely to be pushed through in such a manner, though such concerns should be conveyed to the Planning Authority at this juncture

(Councillor Hare arrived at 19:52hrs)

·        Whether the Advisory Committee may have sight of (a) the 1993 Alexandra Palace and Park : Public Transport Access Study – Teen Econ Economic & Transport Consultants, and (b) the April 1996 – Alexandra Palace and Park : Traffic Assessment – Oscar Faber  

(ii) Resolution 2A - (A) that in terms of the draft Order the Board should provide and disclose to the SAC the proper procedures it intends to devise to monitor and review the performance by (Firoka)  of the covenants contained in the lease, and how these procedures will restrict the use of the leased premise to uses consistent with the aims of the charity; in particular  ...  view the full minutes text for item 29.

The Chair referred to the proposed responses to the Charity Commission in respect of the Section 16 Order. The Chair referred the Committee to the he Hansard debate of 14 January 2004 and in particular the quoted comments of Fiona Mactaggart during that debate which clearly highlighted the future role of the Advisory Committee when any lease was granted. The Chair felt that the sentiments expressed wholly encapsulated the feeling and views of the Advisory Committee and that any response to the Charity Commission should caveat that view as one the Advisory Committee fully endorsed.

The Committee then briefly discussed the proposed Section 16 order as to be published by the Charity Commission and made the following points:

• That in respect of Parts 4(i) & (ii) of the Order and the Acts quoted in Part 4(ii) the Alexandra Park and Palace Act 1985 had been omitted and that this Act clearly defined the role and duties of the Statutory Advisory Committee, and the duties of the Board also;
• That the Charity Commission be advised that this Committee required its intervention in ensuring the admission of the 1985 Act therefore preserving the role of the Advisory Committee in protecting the role of local residents in the future of the Palace, and its duties as the Statutory Advisory Committee;
• That the Charity Commission be informed of the Advisory Committee’s concerns that its lack of sight of any or parts of the lease prevented it form making any valued comments in terms of the future development of the asset, and the future role of the Advisory Committee,  and that the Charity Commission be requested to request the Board to allow the Statutory Advisory Committee sight thereof and make comment on the lease prior to the Charity Commission’s final deliberations, and the view of the Committee be further expressed that in the future public perception – it would be seen that this Committee did express the need to see the lease either wholly or in part and that the public would be satisfied that this Committee had attempted to give views on the proposals;
• That the Charity Commission be advised that the future role of the Advisory Committee had been raised with the Board in January 2006 and subsequently to then but that the role had not been taken account of;
• Whether the Advisory Committee should state to the Charity Commission that it was either in favour broadly with the proposals or accepted and views expressed that some Members were broadly and others were not broadly in agreement to the proposals;

At this point Councillor Hare commented on issues of the future activities of the Palace and the fact that no guarantees as to the future of certain existing functions such as the Organ, and quoted correspondence between the Organ Society and the Trust Solicitor. The Clerk informed Councillor Hare that he was quoting details of a letter between two separate parties, and whilst this letter was also forwarded to Board Members it was not  ...  view the full minutes text for item 30.