Agenda and minutes

Joint meeting of the Alexandra Park & Palace Statutory Advisory Committee and the Alexandra Palace and Park Consultative Committee
Tuesday, 1st September, 2020 7.30 pm

Venue: MS Teams

Contact: Philip Slawther, Principal Committee Co-ordinator  0208 489 2957

Note: To watch, click the link in the agenda front sheet or paste the following into your browser - 

No. Item




Jason Beazley was nominated as Chair.



Please note this meeting will be streamed via the Council’s internet site.    Members of the public participating in the meeting (e.g. making deputations, asking questions, making oral protests) should be aware that they are likely to be filmed, recorded or reported on.  By entering the meeting room, you are consenting to being filmed and to the possible use of those images and sound recordings.


The Chair of the meeting has the discretion to terminate or suspend filming or recording, if in his or her opinion continuation of the filming, recording or reporting would disrupt or prejudice the proceedings, infringe the rights of any individual, or may lead to the breach of a legal obligation by the Council.






Apologies for Absence were received from Jane Hutchinson (SAC), Cllr Das Neves (SAC) & John Boshier (CC).


Declarations of interest

A member with a disclosable pecuniary interest or a prejudicial interest in a matter who attends a meeting of the authority at which the matter is considered:


(i) must disclose the interest at the start of the meeting or when the interest becomes apparent, and

(ii) may not participate in any discussion or vote on the matter and must withdraw from the meeting room.


A member who discloses at a meeting a disclosable pecuniary interest which is not registered in the Register of Members’ Interests or the subject of a pending notification must notify the Monitoring Officer of the interest within 28 days of the disclosure.


Disclosable pecuniary interests, personal interests and prejudicial interests are defined at Paragraphs 5-7 and Appendix A of the Members’ Code of Conduct


There were no Declarations of Interest.


Urgent Business

The Chair will consider the admission of any late items of Urgent Business.  (Late items of Urgent Business will be considered under the agenda item where they appear.  New items of Urgent Business will be dealt with under item 12 below).




MINUTES pdf icon PDF 185 KB

To approve the minutes of the informal Joint Statutory Advisory and Consultative Committees held on 10 December 2019.


The meeting raised concerns that the previous APPCT Board minutes had not been included in the SAC agenda pack. Clerk to include in future agendas (Action).


The joint meeting sought clarification on when public access would be allowed to the West Yard.  In response, the CEO advised that the building was not yet in a position for the public to be allowed access, however once work was completed a tour could be arranged for SAC/CC members.  In response to a follow up question around whether the BBC tower could be included in the tour, the joint committee was advised that this area was not habitable at present.


The joint committee also requested a tour of the railway bridge.  In response, the CEO set out that the bridge was owned by the Crown Estate and that the Palace were unable to comment on the state of the structure as it did not belong to them and had no input into its maintenance.




That the minutes of the meeting of the 10th December 2019 were agreed as a correct record.



To update on Alexandra Park and Palace including Covid-19 impact, reopening and recovery, Wellbeing survey, park management, Creative Learning and Dukes Avenue.

Additional documents:


The joint SAC/CC received a report which provided an update on Alexandra Park and Palace; including the impact of COVID-19, reopening and recovery, wellbeing survey, park management, Creative Learning and Dukes Avenue. The report was introduced by Louise Stewart, Chief Executive (CE) of APPCT as set out in the agenda pack at pages 9-27. The following was noted in discussion of this item:

a.         Clarification was sought around whether any conversations had taken place around the likelihood of further road closures and when these might occur. In response, the CE commented that the last few weeks had seen an increase in incidents of dangerous driving and dangerous parking and that APPCT were in conversation with the Police about how best to tackle this.

b.         Clarification was also sought around parking donations and whether there was an indication of how much this brought in. In response, it was noted that the donations were contributing to the costs of managing the car parks and that this could be £5k on a good week but less when the weather was bad. Having CSP on-site provided APPCT with a safe way of managing the car parks.

c.         Concerns were raised with the closure of Grove car park, given the possible impact on those with mobility issues. In response, Louise commented that this was very small car park and it was less economically viable to open than some of the larger car parks. There were also problems with ASB around this location and it was tricky to manage when the overall site is not busy. APPCT were looking at how they could open it more consistently. 

d.         Further information was requested around the application for a Culture Recovery Fund. In response, the CE advised that an application had been submitted but they had not been informed of the decision yet, it was anticipated this would take at least four weeks. In regards to other funding, APPCT had received £250k from the National Lottery Heritage Fund and the Corporate Trustee have given an additional grant of £500k.

e.         In relation to Dukes Avenue bridge members of the joint meeting expressed concern at the DfT’s seeming desire to demolish the bridge and there was a long historical connection between the bridge and the Palace.

f.          In relation to the litter in the park, an audit was being undertaken of where improvements needed to be made and where signage should be increased. However, the CE emphasised that signage did not necessarily deter litter and that there was always a minority who ignored instructions. 

g.         In regards to litter, the joint meetings and the management team at APPCT acknowledged the phenomenal work done by local volunteers in litter picking and those present wished the record their thanks for all of the work done by the volunteers to keep the park clean.

h.         Concerns were noted with the fact that there had not been a litter communications campaign rolled out over lockdown, like Haringey and Keep Britain Tidy had done.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 172.



To present the results of the car parking consultation and seek the advice and feedback of the SAC&CC on the proposals for the scheme.

Additional documents:


The joint SAC/CC received a report which set out findings of the parking charges survey, the proposed discounts and exemptions for certain user groups, and the next steps in the process. The report was introduced by Louise Stewart, Chief Executive (CE) of APPCT as set out in the agenda pack at pages 27-34. The following was noted in discussion of this item:

a.         In response to a question around the proposed prices for parking, the CE advised that tariffs were included as part of the consultation and this information was available on the website. The proposal consulted upon was for the first half an hour to be free and then an increasing scale dependent upon the length of time required, from £1.50 up to £8 for 4 hours plus hours.

b.         The joint meeting sought clarification as to whether APPCT had heard from the Charity Commission in relation to the proposed introduction of car parking charges the SAC/CC was advised that the Charity Commission had come back with some clarification questions but no formal response had yet been received. The CE advised that if the Board agreed to proceed, it would be anticipated that car parking charges would be in place for the beginning of the new financial year.

c.         Concerns were raised on behalf of local residents of Springfield Road and Dukes Avenue, who had been petitioning against implementing without having a CPZ in place in the surrounding roads, due to an expected adverse impact on the wider parking network. In response, APPCT acknowledged these concerns and commented that this was set out as part of the consultation. It was noted that the Palace had not seen people refusing to donate to the current donate to park scheme and/or this having an impact to date on surrounding roads.

d.         The Chair asked whether there was data available of where visitors come from. In response, the CE advised that this was collated as part of the survey but in relation to the 4m plus visits a year to the palace there was incomplete data as it was not a paid attraction and could not use data from tickets sales. 

e.         The joint meeting sought clarification around whether, following the APPCT proposals to make parking less costly for certain user groups whether it was expected that this would satisfy most user groups. In response, the CE advised that she believed the consultation would reassure user groups that they were listened to. The CE suggested that it was unlikely that everyone would be satisfied, but that was confident that user group who may have been disproportionately disadvantaged would be supported with some form of reduced tariff. 

f.          The SAC/CC commented that they hoped regular users and people with mobility issues would not be unduly penalised.  The CE reminded members that the consultation had set out that Blue Badge holders would not be charged and that the blue badge criteria had been broadened considerably in recent years. It was also pointed out that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 173.



Summary of 2019/20, including the outdoor event monitoring framework, theatre use and complaints.

Additional documents:



The joint SAC/CC received a report which provided an annual summary report on outdoor events monitoring, complaints and theatre activity. The report was introduced by Louise Stewart, Chief Executive (CE) of APPCT as set out in the agenda pack at pages 35-42. The following was noted in discussion of this item:

a.         In relation to complaints it was suggested that although it looked like there was a lot, the numbers were quite low foran attraction of its size. It was acknowledged that this was more than the Palace would like but there was a system in place of recording every complaint, but that every complaint did not necessarily end up being progressed down the formal route. 

b.         The SAC/CC welcomed the fact that they were able to see how much had taken place in the Theatre. It was one of the only parts of the building generating some revenue at present and the team had worked hard to make a success of reopening the theatre in 2018, only to have to close it again.  The CE acknowledged this and advised that the team continued to be creative on how to use the space and that she was confident that it would be a success, once restrictions were lifted.

c.         In response to a question, the CE advised that the theatre was financially contributing as expected and that it had attracted events and also increased collaboration between the different teams at AP particularly between events and Creative Learning. There was more creative learning involvement in other areas of the business as a result.

d.         The SAC/CC commented that the Creative Learning Team had been doing a fantastic job and that they deserved a lot of credit.




That the joint SAC/CC noted the report.


Non-Voting Board Members feedback


Nigel Willmott, advised the joint SAC/CC that the informal Board meeting in April was focused around the board being provided with the car parking consultation results and the COVID-19 lockdown. Since then, the Board had received regular updates on COVID-19 and had also held joint informal meetings with the Trading Company subsidiary to discuss the road closure and ASB. It was noted that the Board had been very supportive of the team and what they had been able to achieve during lock down, including; food distribution, keeping the park going in response to huge demand, reopening the Terrace and the opening of the outdoor cinema. 




It was commented that the owner of Tottenham Wood Farm was Thomas Rhodes and that, aside from being related to Thomas, there was no connection between Cecil Rhodes and Alexandra Palace.  


The Friends of the Alexandra Park advised that they had just published a book entitled ‘The History of Alexandra Park’, which was  available on the website.




New items of urgent business

To consider any items admitted at item 5 above.






5 November 2020

15 March 2021



5th November

15th March