Agenda item

To advise the Committee on progress

The Chair asked for a brief introduction.

The General Manager – Mr Loudfoot advised that at the last meeting of the advisory committee it was reported that little if any progress had been made in forwarding the development project. It was agreed that should any significant progress be made before the next scheduled meeting then a special meeting of the advisory committee would be called to discuss the progress. It had not been necessary to call this meeting. Mr Loudfoot further commented that at this point in time it was still the case that insufficient progress had been made to be able to offer any meaningful report on negotiations.  Mr Loudfoot advised that since there was no progress to be reported a written report would not normally be tabled. However, past meetings had resolved that a written report should always be tabled and as such the lack of progress was formally reported.

In response to a point of clarification from Councillor Whyte with regard to an investigation by the Charity Commission Mr Loudfoot advised that no such investigation was being carried out to his knowledge.

The Chair commented at the brevity of the circulated report and the fact that there was surely some progress to report/impart to the Advisory Committee regarding the current position with the Firoka Group. The local community was hanging on to the fact that there had been a deal struck with the Firoka Group and that in this respect the local community needed to know what the latest position was.

In response Mr Loudfoot advised that he fully appreciated the frustrations expressed at the lack of progress. He advised that in terms of the Firoka bid it was the case that the Board were still in negotiations with Firoka and they were still the Board’s chosen preferred bidder, and a holistic development and approach was still the aim of Board. Beyond that there was nothing further to report.

The Chair commented that surely if there were doubts as to the Firoka bid and further negotiations were being delayed then people had the right to know that this was the case. In sensing that it was likely that there was a problem the Chair commented that by stating that there was no news did give a negative outlook as to the future of the asset.  It was the case that all concerned wanted the building to be in full use and a viable development.

Councillor C Harris commented that whilst she appreciated the frustrations of many present it was a fact that there was indeed no further news to report, and that the situation was as reported. It was also the case that there were occasions where the Board would be unable to report on negotiations because of the financial/commercially sensitive nature or legal content of such negotiations to which no other party would be privy.

Councillor Whyte commented that whilst she appreciated that there was insufficient progress to allow for a fuller report it was the case that there may then be a perceived level of cynicism/questioning.

In response to a request for clarification from Ms Feeney, together with the comments from Councillors Whyte and C. Harris, Mr Loudfoot advised that there were a myriad of delaying issues, some were in relation to items such as project delivery, finance and others such as the principles of the future consultation. It was not the case that vast changes of details to the project were being considered but the fact was that progress had stalled. This was partly due to the consequences of the judicial review of the Charity Commission’s previous consultation.

Ms Feeney thanked Mr Loudfoot for his clear and succinct clarification.

Councillor Oatway, in echoing some of the concerns expressed in terms of the report’s lack of clarity,  expressed her dissatisfaction at the lack of consideration by the Alexandra Palace and Park Board of this Committee’s resolution of 5 February 2008  and that the Board had not as yet considered these resolutions.

The Committee then discussed in considerable detail the issue of the resolution of the Advisory Committee of 5 February 2008 which echoed Councillor Oatway’s concerns of seemingly being ignored by the Board.  Concerns were expressed at the wording of the High Court judgement in relation to the consultation process, and the fact that if there was no overall change to the process or detail of the consultation then why was there a delay in Charity Commission commencing a new consultation process.

Mr Loudfoot commented that it was not the case that the Board were ignoring the Advisory Committee and that the resolutions would be considered when it was appropriate for the Board to do so but he again re-iterated that the development project had not advanced since the last meeting.

The Committee further commented that it was appropriate, should there be no forthcoming response to the resolutions by the Board at its next meeting on 22 July 2008, that a letter should be prepared by the Chair to the Charity Commission expressing the Advisory Committee’s concerns at the Board’s lack of consideration of its resolutions, and its concern at the lack of progress with regard to the consultation process to be embarked upon by the Charity Commission. The Chair commented that it would be appropriate to call a special Advisory Committee or Urgency Sub-Committee after 22 July 2008 to consider such.

Councillor C Harris advised that if such action were to be taken by the Advisory Committee she would not be able to be supportive of such action.  Councillor Harris reiterated her earlier comments with regard to the Board being unable to give responses at this stage to those resolutions.

Mr Aspden advised the Committee for information that out of 31 resolutions thus far put to the Board 2 had been accepted, 12 rejected, and 17 ignored.  

The Chair then summarised and it was:

RESOLVED

i.                    The Advisory Committee notes with considerable concern that the Board has yet to respond to the resolutions of the Advisory Committee of 5 February 2008 (see attached, marked (i)) despite the Board meeting on three separate occasions , namely on 26 February, and 10 and 19 March 2008;

ii.                  That Board be requested without fail, to give due and proper consideration to the above resolutions of 5 February 2008 at its forthcoming meeting on 22 July 2008, and provide a detailed response thereto;  

iii.                That the Board be asked to note the Advisory Committee’s concern at the brevity and lack of any meaningful information imparted by the General Manager in relation to the future of the asset at its meeting on 8^th July, 2008 and,,  in the wider context, at the lack of consultation in respect of other issues affecting the Palace during the past year, including the terms of the proposed Agreements with, and Lease to, Firoka, the matter of the licence agreement entered into with Firoka, and the granting of an track betting licence for the World Darts Championships; and

iv.                 That, in anticipation of there not being any response to the Advisory Committee’s resolutions of 5 February 2008 by the Board at its next meeting on 22 July 2008, then a letter should be prepared by the Chair to the Charity Commission expressing the Advisory Committee’s concerns at the Board’s lack of consideration of its resolutions, that it also expresses its concern at the lack of progress with regard to the consultation process to be embarked upon by the Charity Commission, and that either a special Advisory Committee or Urgency Sub-Committee be convened after 22 July 2008 to discuss the proposed draft letter.