Save Ally Pally | Home Page

Petition to the PM

Already, well over 1000 people have signed the petition to the PM to Stop the Sale! Go to the Sign Our Petition page to add your electronic signature

Letter to Alexandra Palace Trustees about the future of the Palace
(from Jacob O'Callaghan 22.02.08

To the Mayor and all Councillors of London Borough of Haringey as Trustee of Alexandra Palace

Dear Mr Mayor, and Councillors,

You know from previous letters to you all that I challenged the financial information on which the application to the Charity Commission was made for the "holistic" disposal of the whole Palace. I then successfully applied for Judicial Review of the Commission's Order authorizing the lease, on the obvious grounds of insufficient information given to objectors. The Alexandra Palace, a building of national and international importance, is governed by Acts and Orders of Parliament. In court the judge placed heavy emphasis on the undertaking of Fiona Mactaggart MP to Parliament in proposing the 2004 APP Order that there would be sufficient public consultation about any proposed lease. He was astonished that the Commission, and the Trustees, appeared to have ignored this solemn promise to Parliament. Of course, what Ms Mactaggart had also solemnly promised Parliament during the debate in answer to concerns raised by MPs, and the Commission and Trustees and their advisers had equally overlooked, was that any proposed lease would not be allowed simply to be a commercial one.

I am sending to you with this letter a copy of a legal Opinion I have obtained on behalf of the Save Ally Pally Campaign from Francesca Quint, a well- respected charity law barrister who has been legal adviser to the Charity Commission, about the extent of the legal powers and restrictions of the Mayor and Burgesses of Haringey regarding leasing the Alexandra Palace, This has already been sent to the Charity Commission and the Attorney General via the Treasury Solicitor. Our solicitor sent it to Howard Kennedy, solicitors to the Board, so that it be brought to the attention of the trustees as well. I am re-sending it now to members for ease of reference in time for Tuesday's Board meeting.
What this Opinion now confirms is that the 2004 APP Order does not allow the grant of a long lease of the Palace simply to earn a financial return. The User Clause of any lease granted by the trustees must continue to safeguard the continued free use of the Palace for recreational - that is, charitable recreational and educational - purposes. ("Recreational" has, in a charity context, a more restrictive meaning than its common use.)
We are advised, and we feel it would be in the interests of all parties and helpful to pass on this advice to the charity trustees, that the scope of consultation by the Commission about any new application for an Order authorizing any lease would have to take account of the principles in Mrs Quint¹s analysis, if that consultation is not to be again challengeable by judicial review.
We have now had sight after various FoI applications of most of the putative Master Agreement, the Lease and the Project/Building Agreement. So we are, additionally, quite confident on the basis of this Opinion that these agreements would have in any event not survived a separate challenge in the Chancery Division under charity law should the JR not have succeeded, as will any similar new agreement most if not all of whose terms, of course, will now have to be disclosed to the beneficiaries of the charity in connection with any new consultation. We believe that the trustees must require of those negotiating for Haringey that the basis of any negotiations must be that any new agreement must be fundamentally different from the former one, in the light of this Opinion and the continuing public concern and opposition to what has been disclosed including ensuring public access to and preservation of the historic TV studios, to CUFOS and to other areas, by a requirement to sub-lease them at a peppercorn or no rent to charitable or not-for-profit bodies, which the trustees have powers to do, and ensuring preservation of the Willis organ. However Keith Holder, who has been conducting the negotiations with Iain Harris, has told the recent meeting of the Statutory Advisory Committee that he thought that there would be no fundamental change in the terms; in which case the trustees should direct that no further time nor money is wasted on pointless further talks with Firoka.
It is irrelevant, though ironic, that while I and the Save Ally Pally campaign were imaginatively accused by an anonymous poison pen letter of somehow being both a front for the Liberal Democrat party and at the same time in the pay of the unsuccessful bidder for the lease, the company which a Labour council were proposing to make an agreement with, Firoka Limited, contributed (as is its right) £10,000 to Mr David Cameron's election as Leader of his party, and another £8,000-odd to the Conservative Party itself, as recorded on the Electoral Commission's current register on their web site. In fact our campaign has members of all three main parties, and none. However, since the Palace is an educational charitable trust and you also must undertake due diligence, please do carefully reconsider a 125 year lease to a developer whose principal was described in an Evening Standard article as going "From slum landlord to Mr Ally Pally" (2 February 2006, and see entry on Mr Kassam in Wikipedia); whose dealings with Oxford City Council regarding Oxford United's ground, and what they have ended up with, are now publicly bitterly regretted by that Council (not to mention Oxford United fans) and apparently the subject of challenge by Oxford's District Auditor for not providing best value (see for instance http://archive.oxfordmail.net/2006/3/17/91771.html and subsequent articles); who proposed gambling casinos, which are known to attract crime, as suitable uses both at Oxford and in the Palace, an educational charity much used by children; who apparently demanded, and got, a late change in the Master Agreement so that it could claim completion of the lease while the Order was yet subject to Judicial Review; who then threatens you with possible court action; who occupied the Palace for eight months, under yet another secret arrangement, at the charity's expense, during which time we and local press were sent accounts of allegedly terrible staff relations, and who it seems pocketed, under this agreement, perhaps over a million pounds of profits which should have gone to the charity, thus necessitating a huge subvention from council funds; and whether some of this surely merits just a few second thoughts about what Haringey and London may be saddled with for 125 years. Perhaps Board and Council members should also give some thought to who was responsible we do not really know for advising them and protecting their and the charity¹s interests, regarding all this.
Surely there are better alternatives to that. Save Ally Pally is saying that there is an alternative. We have, of course, no connection whatever as a group with any unsuccessful tenderer: we simply believe that another option is viable and preferable and in the best interests of the charity. Some of our members are helping to prepare a formal submission to you and the Commission, because the presence of viable and preferable alternatives to alienation of the main asset must weigh on the Commission in reviewing any renewed application by the trustee for an Order.
I am writing personally to you because firstly, I really do not want the charity or the council to clock up any more bills than necessary for legal correspondence; and secondly because we should surely be all on the same side as residents of Haringey, in wanting the best deal for both the people of London as beneficiaries, and the council taxpayers of Haringey, in ensuring the future of this landmark, world-famous building and its park. We would rather we did that in partnership than at loggerheads, and the energy and passion of our campaign was applied constructively in finding permanent solutions ensuring the Pally's future rather than years of legal battles with the trustees. The choice now lies with yourselves.
Best wishes
Jacob O'Callaghan

Cc Lynne Featherstone MP David Lammy MP Howard Kennedy, solicitors to the trustee

Transcript of the Judgment published | Last updated 31.10.07
Transcript of the Judgment of the judicial review held before the high court on the 5th of October, is now published and is avaible from here.Read the full High Court of Justice Judgment pdf 237kb

The High Court has blocked the disposal of Alexandra Palace on a 125-year lease to a developer | 5.10.07

The reason for the challenge

The Court agreed with Claimant Jacob O’Callaghan on behalf of SaveAllyPally.com campaign, represented by David Wolfe of Matrix, that the decision by the Commission to authorize the sale by Haringey was unfair. The Palace is governed by a Parliamentary statute, and a Minister had promised MPs that prior to the decision objectors would be fully consulted. This "consultation" was "fatally flawed" because the Commission never published the proposed lease and project agreement referred to with their draft Order, or any details, so that no-one could make a meaningful response about exactly what was proposed.

What parts of the park and palace would be leased and what parts maintained as an public space available for the free use and recreation of the public? How would the maintenance of the park be financed, once the trust lost the asset of the palace, that has financed the park maintenance so far? What assurances if any were given to preserve the heritage and historic elements of the Palace, such as the first TV studios and broadcasting mast?

The hearing

The proceedings were an application to the administrative court for a “judicial review” of the Charity commission decision/Order.

Read more here

Senior AP Trustees write to the Charity Commissioners

1 June 2007
David Unwin
Senior Legal Commissioner
Charity Commission

Dear Mr Unwin
VERY URGENT AND IMPORTANT – ALEXANDRA PALACE

As you may be aware, all councillors, as charity trustees of Alexandra Park and Palace, have received letters alleging deficiencies in the proposed 125 year lease to Firoka of Alexandra Palace, and in the processes which have, over the years, led to it.

We write to express our concern that these issues should be resolved prior to the completion of the sale, and in particular seek clarity over:

1. the disproportionate area of the Palace given over to commercial activity by the proposed lease;

2. the nature of the activities that may be permitted;

3. the financial statements to the charity commission on the trustees' behalf made to justify the lease.

In view of the uncertainty and the length of the proposed contract, we request that the Charity Commission undertake an urgent investigation to ensure that the above and other serious concerns which have been expressed about the nature of the proposed contract are properly examined before any irrevocable action is taken.

Yours sincerely

Signed by Neil Williams for and on behalf of

Cllr Neil Williams
(LB Haringey), Trustee

Cllr Richard Wilson
(LB Haringey), Trustee

Cllr Wayne Hoban
(LB Haringey), Trustee

What's going on at Ally Pally?

What's going on at Ally Pally? What's all this about it being sold?

Alexandra Palace in Muswell Hill, designed by the Victorians as the People's Palace for educational recreation, music, sport and entertainment, a landmark north London rival to the Crystal Palace, and in 1936 birthplace of television, has lasted 130 years and survived two fires. And, in 1900, it literally became the People's Palace because by Act of Parliament it was given to the people of London, with its Park, in trust for all time.

That was threatened by a proposal by officials of Haringey council, the current trustee, and the Palace management to dispose of the whole building to a commercial developer, Firoka Ltd. Lock, stock and barrel.

But, if it's a charity, surely they can't do that?

Since one single council, Haringey, took over the charity in 1980, important decisions have in practice been mostly made by Alexandra Palace's senior paid officers, not the elected trustees - who have now been largely reduced to rubber-stampers of already made decisions. For twenty years, the Palace has been run as if it were a commercial exhibition business and conference centre set in a municipal park, and the charitable aspects have been quietly sidelined.

TV studio A at Alexandra Palace, set- up for Cafe Continental

Popperfoto

Senior council officers, and senior Palace management, through their lawyer, represented to the councillors and the charity commission that Ally Pally charitable trust would be insolvent but for council support, and has never balanced its books in living memory, so the whole building should be disposed of. They also claimed that the developer's commercial activities (including a casino) would still be "charitable in a modern sense" and should be free of all that red tape. But the truth is out there - and it's a little ... different. Visit Selling the Palace page for more information.

You mean it hasn't really been continually losing money!

No-as documents on this site prove. To get their consent for the sale, the councillors and charity commission were solemnly assured by the charity's solicitor that "this is a

charity which has not, within living memory, ever balanced its books". This idea was repeated again and again - even getting as far as a Parliamentary committee. Great soundbyte; only trouble is it's complete bunkum. About as true as the gypsy's curse. According to the real audited accounts, the charity has, both before it was transferred to Haringey and after, made surpluses. Visit Palace Accounts page for more information

Developing the potential inside.

This is outrageous ... but what can be done to stop the sale?

There has been no shortage of efforts. 320 people and organizations from all over Britain and the world wrote to the charity commission objecting. So did the local MP, Lynne Featherstone. And the Hornsey Historical Society and the BBC have asked English Heritage for the Grade II listing to be upgraded to protect the historic studios, which under the new owner's plans would disappear... but the commission just ignored the protests, and agreed to the deal.

Shortly another court will be asked if the sale, and the lease, is consistent with the 1900 Act which made Ally Pally a charity. Visit the Legal Challenge page to find out more

Transcript of the High Court Judgment
Last updated 31.10.0

Transcript of the Judgment of the judicial review held before the high court on the 5th of October, is now published Read the full judgment pdf 237k

Mr Justice Sullivan’s comments:

On the promise to consult | P 23
Moreover, it has to be interpreted in such a way as to make sense of the promise that there would be consultation on how beneficial interests should be protected, rather than to make a nonsense of that assurance and to make it ineffective.

On the need for information | P 25
Any reasonable person asked to comment on a draft order giving trustees that power, ……would be bound to say: "Show me the lease and the agreement, and then I will be able to answer your question", or at the very least they would say: "If for some reason you are unable to show me the lease and the project agreements themselves, then at least tell me sufficient about them to enable me to form a view about whether entering into them would be expedient in the interests of the trust".

On the need for fairness | P 27
I find it difficult to understand how the Commission could have thought that this was a fair process. One would have thought that the alarm bells would be ringing loud and clear,….

On confidentiality and fairness | P 30
The Commission, in apparently changing its position and giving the assurance sought by the Trustees that the lease would not be made public, appears to have lost sight of the need for there to be an effective and fair consultation in line with the minister's assurance.

On the need for disclosure by the trustees | P 31
….but it (the Charity Commission) was under an obligation to ensure that those who were consulted had sufficient information to be able to make a meaningful response to the question: should consent be given to the Trustees entering into this particular lease…?

On the Palm Court exhibition in January 2006 and why this
was not sufficient information | 33
…. it is clear that what Firoka were presenting at that stage were outline
proposals, and indeed in a subsequent report they were correctly
described by the general manager of the Trustees as "outlined concepts".
It was clear that the detail would be worked up later, and it is clear from
the extensive documentation in the bundle that there was a lengthy
period of negotiation, and that there were various versions of the lease.
At the end of the day what mattered was not what was shown in outline
at the exhibition in January 2006, but what had been finally agreed and
incorporated into the lease and the project agreement in November 2006,
and it is clear from the documents that changes had occurred over the
intervening months …

On the final date for agreement | P 38
If the lease is not signed by 17 November [sic] - the date should be 17 October. then Firoka will be entitled to treat the Trustees as being in fundamental breach…

On Firoka’s threat to walk away | 40
It is interesting to note that Mr Kassam does not state in terms that even
if full disclosure had been required, he would have walked away, merely
that he would have given serious consideration to doing so. Moreover,
his expressed concern, at least in his witness statement, is about
disclosure in full. It says nothing about the extent to which he might
have been persuaded to agree to some form of redacted disclosure, or
summary or gist of what had been agreed. So if one looks at the evidence
as it emerges from the horse's mouth rather than second hand, some of
the submissions made by Mr Hickman on behalf of the Trustees as to the
likely outcome of relief being given in this case are not made out. …

The Judges’ ruling | P 44
I grant the relief sought. I grant a declaration that the Order is unlawful, and I quash the Order.

Arguing about who should pay the costs:

Mr Wolfe for JOC | P 52
Before the proceedings it was their (the Trustees) pushing of the Commission on the question of disclosure which led to the position we now find ourselves in….So, I do ask that the court make an order that the Trustees pay the claimant's costs,

Mr Hickman for the Trustees | P 58
We are an innocent party to this…..
we say that there was a mistake on the part of Mr Harris….

Judge to Mr Hickman | P 69
Someone is trying to instruct you. You are being prodded from behind, or will be.

Mr Wolfe on disclosure | P 73
So the Commission was open minded...and it was the Trustees who piled in… putting heavy pressure on them not to do so.

Mr Wolfe summing up | P 76
So, my Lord, whichever way one looks
at it,… in my submission it has been the Trustees in the end in the driving seat.

Judge’s final words | P 82
...it is clear that the claimant ought to recover his costs. in large measure the Trustees are the authors of their own misfortune, but they have been ably assisted and abetted, I am afraid, by the Commission. In reality, the running today was made very largely by the Trustees, …but again I bear in mind that they are not the decision-making body; that of course is the Commission…they were both equally to blame for this unfortunate set of circumstances, so the proper order for costs would have been a 50/50 order.