Latest News
A new vision for Alexandra Palace
As you may know, the Alexandra Park and Palace Charitable Trust is developing the Palace in partnership with Firoka Ltd, a company run by the successful businessman Firoz Kassam. I would like to take this opportunity to explain a little about the redevelopment plan as it nears an important stage.
This project, which aims to revitalise the Palace and secure its future after years of decline, began following a small change in the law in 2004 that enabled the charity trustees to enter into a long lease with a company that would offer our treasured landmark a new beginning. The lease applies only to the building and its immediate surroundings - not to the park, which will always remain under the Trust's direct control.
Because the building is owned by a charity, any new beginning will have to deliver its charitable objectives - to preserve the Palace as 'a place of resort and recreation forever'.
That is what we pledged when we embarked on this process. It is what we restated when the building was surveyed and we established that to refurbish it would cost at least £38m. It is what we confirmed again and again as we went to the market and secured, in Firoka, a worthy partner for this enterprise. And it is what we pledge today, as we approach the completion of the process and the scene is set for the transformation of the Palace over the next few years.
That transformation will include a new cinema, a major hotel, a new conference and exhibition facility, an upgraded ice rink, 10 pin bowling and the restoration of the disused theatre as a usable space for the first time in 100 years. In addition a number of restaurants, bars and numerous facilities for children are also proposed.
Legal challenge
Part of this process required a decision by the Charity Commission - as the regulator for charities - to issue an Order allowing the Trustees to sign the proposed agreement with Firoka. That Order was sealed on 4 May 2007 after the Commission had considered views sent in by the public. A subsequent review of that decision was undertaken following by a complaint by a local resident. The Commissioners decided their original decision was correct and should stand.
The same local resident has now engaged solicitors to formally challenge the Charity Commission and their decision through the Courts. This challenge will be vigorously defended. However in light of the legal challenge further comment on this issue is not appropriate. Nevertheless, I would like to take this opportunity to correct a number of factual inaccuracies on which the local resident's media and internet campaign depends.
Accurate financial information
There have been seriously ill-informed comments made to the effect that the charity does not operate at a loss and carries no debt. This is simply untrue. The accounts are audited every year as required by the Charities Act 1993. Over the last 12 years, they have consistently shown that the expenditure needed to keep it running is greater than its income. The balance to keep the charity afloat comes from the council taxpayers of Haringey.
The auditor makes clear each year that the charity is only solvent because of the local authority putting in council taxpayer's money.
In 1996, the Treasury Solicitor agreed that the Council was entitled to an indemnity for the annual revenue support it was providing. How it should be calculated was also agreed, as was the fact that interest should be added and that it should be backdated to 1991. As a result, the amount in the accounts now showing as a liability, once the 2007 accounts have been audited, will amount to £34m.
Clearly, the charity will never be able to repay this sum. To argue that the charity is therefore anything other than bankrupt is untrue. How then, is the estimated £38m required to restore the Palace - the real cost having been conclusively established by independent surveyors in 2005 - meant to be found?
Rhetoric and reality
Those who oppose the Trustees' attempts to revitalise the Palace and secure it for future generations of Londoners have claimed there is a serious and credible alternative solution to the problem of Alexandra Palace's decay, though this view does not bear even the slightest scrutiny.
It is said that a hotel alone would generate enough surplus money to fix the dereliction in the rest of the building. In reality, the charity can have a hotel on site but is legally prevented from building or operating one. To do this an external partner is required. And if this happened without the rest of the redevelopment, it would generate nowhere near enough income to balance the charity's books annually - let alone to restore the derelict parts.
It is also said that the disused TV studios should be revived. Yet these studios are as much about the BBC's heritage as they are that of the charity, and the BBC has made it clear it will not fund such a restoration. Despite this, the Trustees' good faith is evident in the fact that there is provision in the lease for the creation of a museum of television on the site, should there prove to be support from the television industry, sufficient finance to create it, a credible business plan and an adequate and safe route for public access can be found.
Conclusion
We all love Ally Pally. We all want the best for it, and for it to be used to the maximum in a way consistent with the objectives of the charity that owns it. And yet the Palace building is deteriorating and the longer investment is delayed the greater the dereliction becomes. It stands at 40 per cent of the building today - who knows what will happen tomorrow?
We have an historic opportunity to ensure the building is brought back into use and fresh life breathed into one of London's most recognisable icons. Without investment from the private sector the only guarantees are a continuing downward spiral and increasing financial support from the council taxpayer.
Councillor Matt Cooke
Chair of Trustees
Alexandra Palace and Park Charitable Trust
