§ Order for Second Reading read.
7.11 pm§ Mr. Norman Atkinson (Tottenham)I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
In January 1980, Alexandra park and palace were transferred from the Greater London council to the council as trustees, together with the sum of £8.5 million in consideration of the agreement by the council to accept the transfer of functions. It has been and remains the policy of the council to comply with the requirements of the trust, whilst ensuring that the expenses of the park and palace are not thrown upon the rates.
For most of their existence over 100 years, the park and palace have been a financial liability. In agreeing to accept the transfer, the council as trustees was aware that in a short space of years the £8.5 million would be used in maintenance and repair costs and that, unless a fresh approach were made to the nature of the activities at the park and palace, losses would inevitably be incurred and the council, as local authority, would have no alternative but to turn to the rates to make good the losses. This was unacceptable.
It was therefore resolved to ask Parliament for amending legislation to alter the powers of the trustees with respect to what activities should be permitted to take place at the park and palace. A Bill was promoted in the 1979–80 Session. Unfortunately, in July 1980 there was a serious fire at the palace, which caused substantial damage to the building and in the circumstances the council withdrew the Bill.
The council's proposals for the palace and park are that the western end of the building, including the great hall, is to be developed largely as an exhibition centre, including an hotel, while the eastern end of the building will be set aside for cultural and leisure purposes, including sports facilities, a concert hall, a television museum and a drama school. The provision of car parking and other works in the park are also proposed. The planning application which was considered by the Secretary of State sought only such planning approvals as were necessary for the scheme, and the planning permission for the hotel has subsequently been granted.
The present Bill takes account of the decision of the Secretary of State. Part of that development is already within the statutory powers of the trustees. The Bill amends the acts of 1900 and 1913 and the 1966 order and, for convenience, those Acts and that Order, as amended, are scheduled to the Bill. A number of other minor amendments to the trustees' powers are also proposed.
Use of the park and palace in accordance with the existing Acts and order, as amended and added to by the Bill, would be in accordance with the duties of the trustees. The trustees believe that these proposals represent the best way in which the park and palace can be made financially viable without imposing a burden on the ratepayers. They also believe that the proposals are the most appropriate compromise between various conflicting interests and claims on the use of the park and palace.
May I, on behalf of the promoters, give the House this undertaking: 1104
The Promoters undertake that at no stage in the passage of the Bill will they seek to introduce an amendment the effect of which is to empower the Council to insist on the appointment of the chairman of the proposed advisory committee.I hope that the House will accept that and the way in which the promoters present the statement to the House.Perhaps I can comment on remarks which have been made since the statement of the promoters was circulated to every Member of the House. When it was first circulated, I and others were asked it there was unanimity of opinion within the borough. I must say, in all honesty, that there are some controversies and differences of opinion arising out of the very nature of Haringey as it has been since 1963, an amalgamation of existing boroughs which represent very different groups of people and income levels.
The amenities at either end of the borough are startlingly different. The borough runs east-west and, according to the degree of eastern interest as against western interest, the differences are quite marked. For instance, in the western end of the borough there are some 3,000 acres of woodland and open green space. Within that 3,000 acres there are two golf courses as well as the palace, and there are also some other protected areas. Near the palace itself is a wildlife conservation area. From that point of view it has an extremely privileged position within the borough as against the eastern end, where there are scant facilities of this sort and very little open space because virtually the whole of the Lea valley is taken up with reservoirs and water-covered areas. There is certainly very little access for people at the eastern end. Because of that geographical difference, those who live in the more densely populated end of the borough are envious of those who live a little more luxuriously in the western end.
It is worth noting that the rate yield per acre from the eastern end of the borough is greater than from the western end, although I immediately concede that people living around the Alexandra palace area pay higher rates than those who live at the eastern end of the borough.
There is communication between the two parts of the borough. Tottenham has one of the most noted heronries in the country on the River Lea. Each night, the heron communicate between east and west. I understand that underneath their flight path they have nicked every goldfish between Tottenham and Alexandra palace. At one time, the RAF seriously suggested that it would make available fighter aircraft and electronic surveillance equipment to discover what the heron were doing at night, and some hon. Members may recollect the correspondence in The Times.
More seriously, my final point relates to the rates and the amenity itself. As I have already mentioned, the undertaking by the promoters that the activity must be self-viable means that the people who will most enjoy the amenity will not contribute to its upkeep through the rates. However, some other problems will be involved, and I readily acknowledge the existence of those problems. Because of the essential viability of commercial enterprise within the palace area there will, of necessity, be events during the year that attract 10,000 or possibly more people. That could mean the arrival of 4,000 vehicles—on one occasion there were 4,000 motor cycles—which could cause disruption to the amenities of the area.
However, we cannot have it both ways. If there is to be commercial viability, of necessity there must be disruption to the area. That must follow, if there is to be 1105 no charge to the rates. If it were decided that vehicles would not pass through the neighbourhood, the only alternative would be a charge on the rates.
The promoters have, however, given an assurance to minimise any disturbance. They have said that they will take all possible measures, within the terms of the proposals of the amenity committee, to avoid the sort of disturbance to which I have referred. I commend the Bill to the House.
§ Sir Hugh Rossi (Hornsey and Wood Green)Listening to the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) move the Second Reading and describe the large amount of open space that my constituency has the good fortune to enjoy, I wondered for a moment whether he was going to suggest that we should use that land to build houses and industrial premises. Fortunately, he is promoting a Bill part of the objective of which is to preserve the open space in the parkland surrounding the Alexandra palace.
I am grateful to Mr. Speaker for selecting the instruction to the Committee on the Bill which stands in my name. In recommending it to the House, I should point out that its terms have been agreed by the Bill's sponsors, after protracted negotiations. It is in return for their agreement that I do not propose to divide the House on the Bill.
The instruction flows directly from the recommendation made by the inspector of the planning inquiry into the proposals by the London borough of Haringey for this 200-acre site, which lies in the centre of my constituency, and for the burnt-out shell of a substantial Victorian building which dominates the landscape of north London.
The Alexandra palace and park have had a chequered history, as the hon. Member for Tottenham has just mentioned. The palace was first built in 1875 and has been burnt down twice. It has been through a number of hands—private owners and public trustees—and in January 1980 the GLC paid the London borough of Haringey more than £8 million to take it off its hands. At the time, Sir Horace Cutler described that transaction as the best property deal he had ever made in his entire professional and public life. But divine providence came to the assistance of Haringey, and six months after it acquired the building and £8 million, the palace was substantially destroyed and damaged by fire. That produced an insurance settlement of £ 18.5 million, which has been well invested since.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment then agreed to the public inquiry into the future of the site, which has considerable regional significance. The proposals before the inspector included the provision of 11,360 sq metres of exhibition space, including back-up areas. No other venue south of Birmingham can provide between 2,500 and 10,000 sq metres of clear span, solid floor space with at least 9 metres head room, except for Olympia. Thus the importance of these proposals.
They also included extensive leisure and recreational facilities, a concert hall with a fine Willis organ, museum, theatres and drama school. Deemed planning permission has already been given by Haringey to itself to build a hotel and provide 10 acres of parking space.
1106 After hearing evidence for five months into these proposals, with a great number of local objections, the inspector produced a detailed 200-page report in which he concluded:
the proposals would benefit the local and wider community firstly, by preserving a building of considerable character and historical interest which forms an important landmark on the London skyline and which is held in affectionate regard by many people. Secondly, by providing a modern exhibition and public events venue of a suitable size for London, which is likely to benefit the exhibition industry and visiting public. Thirdly, by providing recreational and leisure facilities for the use of people living both in and around the borough. Fourthly, by improvement to the Park which would upgrade it to Metropolitan park standards.However, the inspector drew attention to several disadvantages, the main one of which stemmedfrom the impact on the area due to excessive volumes of traffic and numbers of parked cars which may be generated by events at the Palace.He recognised that considerable problems had been caused to local residents in the past and the objections these had generated to the council's current proposals before him. However, he went on to say:I feel that it would be wrong to condemn a potentially beneficial scheme just because it might be mis-managed in the future. However, in view of the history of past problems, including for example the noise disturbance caused by the recent Jam Concert at the Pavilion, some arrangement for independent monitoring and control of the running of the Palace is needed.He suggested the setting up of a small advisory committee, independent of the Haringey council but upon which there would be equality of representation, to keep an eye on activities at the palace in terms of their impact on the area. Excessive interference in the running of the palace would, he said, be undesirable, but the committee should have some form of veto on the type and size of events proposed.As we all know, the inspector had no power to make the setting up of such a body a condition of the grant of planning permission. The Secretary of State—who endorsed the findings, including the establishment of the committee—does not have that power either. Unfortunately, Haringey was not for a while disposed to set up a committee voluntarily, seeking to rely on an advisory body which it dominates and which, according to the inspector,
is not … a suitable body to exercise such control.Hence my need to trouble the House. However, agreement has finally been reached with the sponsors, on the basis of the inspector's recommendation.Paragraph (1) of the instruction carries through the recommendation by requiring the establishment of an advisory committee upon which the local authority and local residents' associations will have equal representation. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) for his parliamentary undertaking that the council will not seek at any stage during the passage of the Bill to produce an amendment which would give it the right to appoint the chairman of the committee.
The committee will advise on events and activities in the palace and park with a view to ensuring that they do not cause nuisance or annoyance, and are not of detriment to the amenities of local residents. No absolute right of veto is proposed, as this could amount to excessive interference in the running of the palace, but the council will have to give full, proper and due weight to the advice that it receives and to do its best to carry out the recommendations of the independent statutory committee.
1107 Paragraph (2) seeks to ensure that the affairs of the palace are conducted in a prudent and businesslike manner, that the council does not overreach itself and that no burden or cost falls upon the ratepayers, who bear the heaviest burden in the whole of greater London. The hon. Member for Tottenham will be relieved about this, since his constituents fall within that body of ratepayers. This paragraph covers an undertaking given repeatedly by the council when putting forward its proposals.
Paragraph (3) deals with the vexed question of car parking in adjoining streets. The inspector found that
the introduction of car parking charges in the park—as proposed in the Bill—would make street parking an … attractive proposition.On the other hand, if no charges are made, it would be difficult to cover the cost of—for instance—a multistorey car park. The inspector said:the Borough Council should reconsider the possibility of introducing residents' parking permits, or some similar measure, in the surrounding area.Such permits could be issued free to local residents, enforcement taking place only on the occasion of major public events.However, the Bill cannot deal with what happens outside the palace and the park. Therefore, that third and final paragraph requires the Committee on the Bill to satisfy itself on this matter, as it can do by receiving appropriate parliamentary undertakings from the sponsors.
Having explained the intent of the instruction and the reasons for its being made, that there has been agreement between the sponsors and myself, and that we seek only to give effect to the proposals of an independent planning inspector who heard evidence for over five months in order to assess the position for himself, I commend the Bill to the House.
§ Mr. Robert Atkins (South Ribble)I wish to declare an interest as a ratepayer in Haringey and as one who was a member of the council of the London borough of Hackney for nine years, representing two wards immediately adjacent to the palace and park. As one whose family has lived in the Hornsey area for over 150 years, I can claim to have some knowledge of the area.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) on the way in which he presented his case and the grace with which he conceded the instruction which my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi) has tabled. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green on the way in which he tabled the instruction and the work that he has done for his constituents, of whom, in part, I am still one, in trying to obtain relief for them.
I was in a small way responsible for objecting to the Bill, in loco parentis for my hon. Friend, who was then 1108 a Minister and therefore unable to do so. I am delighted with the instruction which now appears on the Order Paper and I wish the palace and the park, and the adjacent residents, good fortune. This important site in north London has a great history and, I believe, a great future.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Bill accordingly read a Second ime and committed.
§
Ordered,
That it be an Instruction
1. (a) that they amend the Bill by including a provision establishing a statutory advisory committee to assist the Trustees in fulfilling the Trusts and ensuring that no activities undertaken or permitted by the Trustees in Alexandra Park and Palace shall be a nuisance or annoyance or of detriment to the amenities of local residents;
2. That, subject to the approval of the Charity Commissioners, they amend the Bill by including a provision that nothing therein shall permit any contribution to be made out of the Rate Fund by the London Borough of Haringey towards any of the expenses of the maintenance, management or administration of the Park and Palace; and
3. That they satisfy themselves that the Council of the London Borough of Haringey will take all reasonable steps to ensure that car parking does not occur in residential streets near the Palace and Park as a result of the activities and events therein.—[Sir Hugh Rossi.]