If you have clicked through to the mailer on www.hthas.org.uk and made your concerns known to local councillors, you will probably have received a reply from Cllr Strickland wherein he lays out Council’s view of the history of the procurement process to date, and a sketch of the rationale behind the selection of FEC as preferred bidder.
Included in the message is this paragraph:
I am aware that Hornsey Town Hall Appreciation Society were involved in the unsuccessful bid and therefore have a clear interest in one proposal over another, but the Council’s role is to take a fair view.
The overarching inference is that HTHAS are somehow part of the unsuccessful bid and therefore have an ulterior motive in our resistance to the hotel solution, while Council takes the opposite (fair) view.
Cllr Strickland’s inference is as ill-mannered as it is incorrect.
To be clear: HTHAS were not “involved” in the unsuccessful bid any more than we were “involved” in the FEC/CoPlan bid – we met with both of them (and others besides) and set out as clearly as possible what the community’s aspirations for the site are. We did this with the blessing of Haringey Council; they included us on a register of interested parties, anticipating that bidders would approach us. We did not join anyone’s bid, we signed no documents, and we provided no endorsement. To anyone. Our only commitment was – and is – to community use and access.
It is true we have a clear interest in one proposal over another. Of course we do. One proposal is closer to the community’s wishes than the other. If you clicked through to the mailer on our website or signed the petition, then you too have a “clear interest in one proposal over the other”. Welcome to the club.