Agenda item

To receive the report of the Chairman, Alexandra Park and Palace Joint Statutory Advisory Committee and Consultative Committee.

To receive the report of the Chief Executive, Alexandra Park and Palace.

The Chair introduced his report as set out and he explained that his purpose was to clarify aspects of regeneration and commercial development that had given some members cause for concern in recent months.  He introduced the five areas that required clarification and acknowledged that the Chief Executive’s subsequent report helped in this aspect and he welcomed it.

In discussion it was acknowledged that the areas of the Palace assigned for specific usages were still as defined by the 1985 Act and the purposes of the 1900 Act of free (as in affordable) recreation, education and entertainment still applied to the whole Palace and Park (apart from the hotel area).

It was further acknowledged that the recent summary statements of Farrell’s masterplan, which was in terms of basic distinctions between areas dedicated to commercial, or community use, was an over-simplification.

NOTED the responses from Duncan Wilson:

·                The scope for a further HLF bid

There were projects which went beyond the HLF bid that might require HLF funding, for example the WW1 project.  However, any major capital grants would need to wait until the current HLF project was complete.

All funding bids needed to be supported by financially viable business plans, and evidence of this had to be presented to the HLF in order to reach further stages.

·                The extent to which the HLF funding might inhibit commercial development opportunities

The HLF would not provide funding to straightforward commercial activities, so there needed to be a balance between commercial and community activities.

·                The areas of the Palace seen as having potential for commercial development

It was important not to be closed minded with regard to commercial development, as it was possible to have both commercial and charitable activities at the same time.

If the Palace were serious about building a hotel then consideration would have to be given as to how to entice a developer, and this may include giving them some influence over what happens elsewhere in the Palace.

·                The scope for redevelopment partnership opportunities

It should be recognised that a lot of capital would need to be raised to invest in the building – event spaces would need to be renewed in order to continue usage.  It may be possible to reach a long term agreement with current event promoters if the event spaces were improved.

It would be likely that any developers would want to have some say over the types of events that would take place at the Palace.

Duncan Wilson introduced his report as set out.  He introduced Ian Huddleston from Pinsent Masons, an advisor on real estate law.

One point that emerged in discussion were members’ concerns about Alexandra Palace and Park in its entirety being included by Haringey Council in a recent ‘Property Fair / Sitematch’, which was thought to be inappropriate.

NOTED:

·                The HLF had made it clear that they would like to see an arrangement with a commercial operator to demonstrate that the Palace was sustainable.

·                A simple solution to this would be to find a developer who was prepared to provide the money to build a hotel.  So far there had been more interest from potential hotel operators than developers with investment capital.

·                Ian Huddleston added that it would be an evolutionary process.  The initial project to take to market would need to be a simple proposition, and may comprise looking at a hotel with an operating agreement over events.

·                Any Charity Commission-led consultation could take a year to determine.

·                Once an answer had been received from the HLF on the 2^nd round application it could give an incentive to a developer.

·                Market testing was planned to begin in September 2014.

·                There would be clarification by the Chief Executive as to the extent of the areas on offer.

RESOLVED that the recommended approach as at most likely to meeting the Trust’s objectives and secure investment of the magnitude needed on terms acceptable to the Trust be endorsed.