Agenda item

To advise the Committee on progress.

The Chair referred to recent events in respect of the future of the Palace and the fact that the preferred bidder and partner – the Firoka Group had, on 18 August 2008, withdrawn its interest in the development of Alexandra Palace.  

The Chair further informed the Committee that the Board, on 26 September 2008, had considered an independent review of the licence entered into with the Firoka Group – the Walklate report, which was readily available on the Council’s web.  The Board had endorsed the recommendation/findings of the review, as well as an action plan arising from the review in respect to governance arrangements. Copies of that report were available on the Council’s web, and copies should have been available at this meeting but were not, and would be circulated to the Consultative Committee for their information.

With regard to the future of the Palace the Chair commented on the opportunity now open to the Board, given the history of the Palace over the past 25 years, to look at the pure potential of the Palace and he felt that there was an exciting prospect for the Board during the next 6 months, in conjunction with the Local community, residents, statutory bodies and interested groups, to look at a whole range of issues in respect of the future of the Palace. The Chair also commented that by having an open and frank dialogue this would not preclude any idea or proposal and he was confident that this process would be a positive and successful one.  The structure of the existing trusteeship could be looked at, and whether there were options to be explored for the transfer of trusteeship in the future, and recognising what was the best interest of the Palace.

The General Manager – Mr Loudfoot also commented on the matter of the  Firoka Group giving formal notice of withdrawing its interest as preferred bidder for the future development of the asset on 18 August 2008.  The Board, at a special meeting on 26 September 2008, considered a number of matters relating to the future of the asset, including an independent review of the Licence arrangements entered into with the Firoka Group (a copy of that review was available for any Member at this meeting), and the resultant recommendations arsing from that review recommendations regarding the future governance arrangements relating to the palace had been endorsed by the Board.  Mr Loudfoot further advised that the Board had also discussed, and had agreed that an away day be arranged to discuss the future of the asset, and the way forward in the next 6/12 months.

Ms Hayter referred to the Independent report of which she had a copy, and commented that in her view it was evident that the advice of the Council’s legal service should have been sought in terms of the entered into licence arrangements in order to have a balanced view, but this evidently had not been done. In seeking clarification as to the advice sought by Trustees Ms Hayter added that it was the case that the Board had undergone a number of membership changes over recent years and therefore there was not a large historical level of experience. 

In response to the comments of Ms Hayter, the Chair advised that there were evident and recognised issues regarding the potential for Board of Trustees roles conflicting with those of a Councillor, and the fact that the trust was a charitable organisation. The Independent review did indeed address this issue and recommended a number of actions in relation to the governance arrangements to assist the Board, and that the action plan was designed  to ensure that the Board never found itself in this position again in the future.

Mr O’Callaghan to the comments of the Chair in relation to difficulties and tensions/conflicts of trustees/Councillors and welcomed the assessment/review of roles. He particularly referred to the details of the entered into licence and that in his view this licence had been drawn up by the then General Manager – Mr Holder at the behest/bidding of Mr Kassam. It was the case that such events surrounding this were astounding and that both the Board and the Council had neither been aware of the terms of the licence or consequences of such an agreement. In his view, there were evident fraudulent actions that needed to be addressed.

The Chair responded that whilst it was the case that the actions of individuals were unclear and contradictory, as referred to in the independent report, with regard to the reference to possible fraudulent actions he stressed the need for caution in expressions specifically about individuals.  In terms of the role of the former consultant/advisor, the Chair reminded the Committee that investigations were not as yet complete.  

Councillor Hare commented that the Board had indeed agreed to have a further special meeting to look at the legal advice given in relation to the licence arrangements.

In response to clarification from Prof Hudson in relation to the future development of the asset and whether the holistic approach would still be pursued both the Chair and Mr Loudfoot commented that the whole development of the Palace over a 25 year history would be examined in order to assess and move forward   and in doing so start with a blank canvass, engaging with community groups, interested parties etc to work together in forming ideas and concepts. It would indeed be a grave mistake to not learn from the difficulties of the past 25 years.

Councillor Egan also commented on the difficulties referred to in terms of the conflicts of Trustees in acting as Trustees as opposed to elected Councillors.  It was the case that politics had evidently come into play on both sides of the political spectrum and that there had to be a non political approach and a frank and open dialogue in the future.

Mr Ballard referred to the consequences of the independent review and its finding and that in his view it seemed evident that the Trustees had not been asked to seek the view of either the Trust Solicitor or any other person. It was not a case of any incompetence but a fact that no such opinion had been sought. It was also the case that a number of the actions alluded to had indeed not been before the Trustees.  In his view, the holistic approach was probably not a runner now and the whole future of the asset needed to be re-examined.  He also felt it was appropriate, given the evident conflicts of trustees, to examine the Trusteeship of the Board and consider enhancing/widening participation.

The Chair reiterated his earlier comments in respect of future governance arrangements and the review of the role of the Trustees.

Councillor Hare commented on the extraordinary and positive performance of APTL since the Firoka Licence had been terminated in January 2008.  Given the level of decline in business during the period of the former licence arrangement, the question of why such a licence was allowed to operate for the time period needed clarification together with the actions of the then General Manager and Chair and the lack of consultation with the Board in terms of those actions.

In response to points raised by Councillor Hare, the Chair advised that actions taken had been disputed by the 2 individuals concerned which would be the subject of further clarification.  Councillor Williams reminded the Chair that three other individuals as detailed in the report had also confirmed that this was the case.

Councillor Hare commented that in terms of the commissioned report and its findings it was clear that there were wider ramifications in terms of the detail of the licence and the decision reached by the Board in April 2007 and the resolutions of that meeting had no way given approval to entering into the agreement that had resulted in the licence with the Firoka Group. Councillor Hare commented that he had written, together with Councillor Williams, to the Chief Executive of the LB Haringey who had advised that they make a Freedom of Information request (FoI) to their own Board – Alexandra Palace to obtain details of the licence agreement.  Councillor Hare advised that the commissioned report was remarkable in its findings but that the point should be made that it was a report commissioned by the Local Authority, and not Councillors.

Mr O’Callaghan commented on the issue of Mr Kassam’s possible claims to sue the trustees and that in his view there was no basis for such a claim for loss of money. He added that the claim would never reach the Court of Chancery/High Court. However the Save Ally Pally Group would be more than happy to assist the Trustees in fighting any such claim against beneficiaries.

In response to Mr O’Callaghan and clarification by Ms Hayter Mr Loudfoot advised that the only suggestion of a claim had been at the point of Firoka’s formal letter of withdrawal in August and that it should be noted that nothing further regarding a claim had been received since that time.  The Chair added that the statements in the press – in the Evening Standard it had been quoted that Mr Kassam had said that had commented that the Palace would be hearing from his Lawyers.  To date nothing had been received and any further rumour was.

In clarification to points from Mr Ballard as to why the process had finally failed, Mr Loudfoot advised that it was viewed that the Firoka Group had grown tired of waiting in terms of the further issues to be resolved and had therefore walked away.

In conclusion, the Chair thanked the Committee for its contribution to the debate.

RESOLVED

That the update be noted.