Agenda item

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 to  maintain the Palace as a place of public resort and recreation and for other public purposes, bearing in mind the SAC’s statutory obligation to promote the objects of the charity; which the response from the Board was:

The principle behind this advice is substantially accepted.  The post of Monitoring Officer will have within its remit the role of  monitoring and reviewing 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 to  maintain the Palace as a place of public resort and recreation and for other public purposes, and that the SAC’s statutory obligation to promote the objects of the charity will be covered under the residual arrangements of the Charity after the lease was granted.  There will also be an employee of the charity who will exercise its continuing role as part of its landlord function.

Exact details of these roles and responsibilities will need to be worked through by the Board as Trustees with the assistance of professional advice.

The comments of the Advisory Committee were:

·        That whilst the response from the Board states its acceptance of the Advisory Committee’s resolution in actual fact it did not give any detail of the role of the proposed Monitoring Officer as this had yet to be defined;

·        That there was a need for such definition of the role of monitoring officer prior to the lease transferring of the Firoka Group and that the Advisory Committee should have some understanding of this role;

At this point Councillor Hare commented on the recent decisions of the Board in terms of the signing up to the agreement and the clear need for the definition of the role of monitoring officer.  The Chair reminded Councillor Hare that as a member of the Board but not of this body he had been party to information that should not be disclosed in open session and asked that he note this in any comments to avoid potential conflicts.

·        That the Advisory could only note the views expressed by the Board and its dissatisfaction at the detailed lack of respobse;

(ii)               Resolution 2B - that the Board should address itself to the question (and provide the SAC with a written answer in detail) of how the role and function of the SAC, as provided for in Part III,Schedule 1,paras 19/20 of the Act  will be maintained after the lease is entered into with the tenant, with particular regard to the question as  to how the SAC is to discharge its statutory duties under the  Act; which the response from the Board was:

That the Board advises the Advisory Committee that there will be no change to the role of the Advisory Committee, and it will continue under the existing rules after the lease to the Firoka Group has been granted.

            The comments of the Advisory Committee were:

·        That the functions of the Advisory Committee in terms of the 1985 Act in respect of its duties to the Board had not be taken account of by the Board– whilst it was accepted that this applied now it was a fact that though the Board was currently in control of the asset now it would not be the case post transfer and therefore there should be dialogue with the future controller of the asset and the Advisory Committee

(iii)Resolution 2D - that the Board ought to make a provision in the lease  to preserve the current powers and duties of the SAC to enable the local community in the form of the current make-up of the SAC (local residents’ associations’ representatives and councillors) to continue to be consulted  and for the tenant to have due and proper regard to its views, and use their best efforts to give effect to its recommendations, in respect of the general policy relating to the activities and events arranged or permitted in the Palace, and generally in respect of the functions of the SAC under Schedule 1 Part III  of the Act; and the resolution of the Board:

That the Board advises the Advisory Committee that there will be no change to the role of the Advisory Committee, and it will continue to exist after the lease to the Firoka has been granted.

The comments of the Advisory Committee were:

·        That the response failed to answer the expressed views of the Committee to ensure that  the proposed lease ensured provision to preserve the current powers and duties of the SAC to enable the local community in the form of the current make-up of the SAC (local residents’ associations’ representatives and councillors) to continue to be consulted  and for the tenant to have due and proper regard to its views, and use their best efforts to give effect to its recommendations, in respect of the general policy relating to the activities and events arranged or permitted in the Palace, and generally in respect of the functions of the SAC under Schedule 1 Part III  of the Act; and the resolution of the Board

(iv) Resolution 2D -  that the Board provides the SAC with a copy of the draft lease, the project agreement and master agreement to be entered into by the Board of Trustees and the Firoka Group to enable the SAC to become conversant with the terms of the lease insofar it effects the role of the SAC and the aims of the charity under the provisions of the Act; and the response of the Board:

That the Board advises the Advisory Committee that its Chair has been provided with such copy draft documentation but that it is not appropriate for the Board to disclose the draft documentation to the Advisory Committee as they contain confidential and commercially sensitive information.  The Board also considers that in advancing this request the Advisory Committee is going beyond its remit.

The comments of the Advisory Committee were:

·        That the resolution of the Board failed to recognise the need for the Advisory Committee to have sight of the non-confidential parts of the lease in order to comment upon whether the role of the Advisory Committee was recognised ;

·        That in an advisory capacity to the Board it was key that the Advisory Committee should have been given the opportunity to view the lease and make appropriate comments;   

·        That whilst the Chair of the Committee had received an entire copy of the proposed lease as observer on the Board the confidentiality of the lease precluded the Chair from being able to discuss its contents and that that the reference to the Chair receiving the lease were in a sense offensive.  It was also the case that a Councillor Member of the Committee had requested and obtained an entire copy of said lease but also was  precluded from discussing the content;

·        That the Hansard debate references of 14 January 2004 as attached to the resolution to the Board clearly stated the intention of the role of the Advisory Committee in respect the future granting of any lease and that such views had been ignored entirely by the Board.

(v) Resolution 3 - that in respect of the Board’s residual functions post transfer of the asset to the Firoka Group, the Advisory Committee requests that the Board establishes a proper and effective monitoring procedure in respect of Firoka’s works and that the post be created of a ‘Clerk of Works’ to ensure that the works are carried in accordance with the terms of the project agreement; and the resolution of the Board that:

That the Advisory Committee be advised that in respect of its request that the Board establishes a proper and effective monitoring procedure in respect of Firoka’s works and that the post be created of a ‘Clerk of Works’ to ensure that the works are carried in accordance with the terms of the project agreement, the Advisory Committee be advised that  the  proposed role of Monitoring Officer to the Trustees will encapsulate  a proper and effective monitoring procedure in respect of Firoka’s works.

The comments of the Advisory Committee were:

• That as with the comments in 2A whilst the comments of the Board were noted there needed to be a clearly defined role for the post of Monitoring Officer and that as yet this had not been determined.

In conclusion the Chair summarised and the Committee concurred with the Chair in the following resolution:

RESOLVED   

That in respect the Board’s resolutions and responses to the Advisory Committee as outlined in the preamble to this resolution had not satisfied the Advisory Committee that the Board had not sufficiently taken account of the Advisory Committee’s concern or views and that the Advisory Committee would be making representations to the Charity Commission as detailed in the bullet points as shown in (i) – (v) above.