The Chair referred to the proposed responses
to the Charity Commission in respect of the Section 16 Order. The
Chair referred the Committee to the he Hansard debate of 14 January 2004 and in particular
the quoted comments of Fiona Mactaggart
during that debate which clearly highlighted the future role of the
Advisory Committee when any lease was granted. The Chair felt that
the sentiments expressed wholly encapsulated the feeling and views
of the Advisory Committee and that any response to the Charity
Commission should caveat that view as one the Advisory Committee
fully endorsed.
The Committee then briefly discussed the
proposed Section 16 order as to be published by the Charity
Commission and made the following points:
- That in respect of Parts 4(i) &
(ii) of the Order and the Acts quoted in Part 4(ii) the Alexandra
Park and Palace Act 1985 had been omitted and that this Act clearly
defined the role and duties of the Statutory Advisory Committee,
and the duties of the Board also;
- That the Charity Commission be
advised that this Committee required its intervention in ensuring
the admission of the 1985 Act therefore preserving the role of the
Advisory Committee in protecting the role of local residents in the
future of the Palace, and its duties as the Statutory Advisory
Committee;
- That the Charity Commission be
informed of the Advisory Committee’s concerns that its lack
of sight of any or parts of the lease prevented it form making any
valued comments in terms of the future development of the asset,
and the future role of the Advisory Committee, and that the Charity Commission be requested to
request the Board to allow the Statutory Advisory Committee sight
thereof and make comment on the lease prior to the Charity
Commission’s final deliberations, and the view of the
Committee be further expressed that in the future public perception
– it would be seen that this Committee did express the need
to see the lease either wholly or in part and that the public would
be satisfied that this Committee had attempted to give views on the
proposals;
- That the Charity Commission be
advised that the future role of the Advisory Committee had been
raised with the Board in January 2006 and subsequently to then but
that the role had not been taken account of;
- Whether the Advisory Committee
should state to the Charity Commission that it was either in favour
broadly with the proposals or accepted and views expressed that
some Members were broadly and others were not broadly in agreement
to the proposals;
At this point Councillor Hare commented on
issues of the future activities of the Palace and the fact that no
guarantees as to the future of certain existing functions such as
the Organ, and quoted correspondence between the Organ Society and
the Trust Solicitor. The Clerk informed Councillor Hare that he was
quoting details of a letter between two separate parties, and
whilst this letter was also forwarded to Board Members it was not
the subject of public discussion and its contents should not be
disclosed. The Clerk also reiterated
the point made by the Chair in respect of possible conflicts of
interest on Councillor Hare’s part. Councillor Hare acknowledged the Clerks comments
apologised for this admission.
- The future role of the Monitoring
Officer and the future residual functions of the Trust needed
definition but as the Advisory Committee had not been party to the
discussions in this respect it was unable to comment;
- That the content of the project
agreement and lease should contain a clearly defined role in terms
of how planning issues would be managed and the role of the
Advisory Committee in ensuring it is fully consulted on such
matters in the future.
The Chair then summarised and it was:
RESOLVED
That a response to the Charity Commission in
respect of the Section 16 Order be prepared by the Chair on behalf
of and in conjunction with Members of the Advisory Committee.
There being no further business to discuss the
meeting ended at 20.40HRS.
D. LIEBECK
CHAIR