Haringey Liberal Democrats have taken the fight against the 125 year privatisation of Alexandra Palace to Parliament, securing a debate in Committee. The move follows the initiation of a Statutory Instrument in Parliament which would amend the Alexandra Park and Palace Act. The date for the debate on the legislative changes is yet to be scheduled, but it is likely to be in January 2004. A debate on the measure, which would otherwise have gone through ‘on the nod’, was called by Lib Dem MPs, including party leader Charles Kennedy.

The Council and Alexandra Park and Palace Board, backed by the Charity Commission, initiated a Statutory Instrument in Parliament that if successful will allow them to lease the Palace and much of its land, unfettered, to commercial developers for up to 125 years. The Lib Dems are deeply concerned that the heritage of the Palace will be lost amongst a developer’s proposals – which in the past have included plans for a food hall, discotheque and multi screen cinema.

Although there would be restrictions imposed by English Heritage and the Charity Commission, priority would be given to the commercial aspects. Particular concerns have been expressed by local residents and charities which use the Palace. Many, including the Palace’s statutory advisory committee, have argued against the 125 lease arrangements or feel they have been inadequately consulted.

Lib Dem spokesperson, Cllr Bob Hare is also concerned about the implications of the Statutory Instrument (SI) on public use of the park and Palace.

“There are too many unanswered questions about what effect the changes on the Act would have to how the Palace is governed,” says Bob Hare.

“What safeguards will there be for local residents that developer’s proposals are appropriate for the Palace and its surrounds?”

Cllr Hare continues:

“Alexandra Palace is a historic building to local residents and Londoners. It is vital that any development meets the needs and aspirations of London and the area. By securing a debate in Parliament on the issue, we will have an opportunity to explore whether the legislative changes are necessary and in the interests of the public.”