Unravelling whether the taxpayer gets value for its multi-million pound commitment to the proposed Victor Hugo Centre is not straightforward.
This is partly because so few details have been ironed out, with suggestions in the States that on top of match funding the Tourist Information building could be given over for just a peppercorn rent.
It also because hundreds of thousands of pounds were spent on refurbishment to move in Probation Services and then there are the costs of relocating the visitor centre to the Market Building where commercial rents will now have to be paid from this summer.
There has been scant political scrutiny in public of the £2.5m. match funding allocation which was subsumed within this year’s Budget where focus was very much on GST and income tax, and questions from Express posed well before that debate with the hope of shedding light on the situation took months to be answered by the States.
Even then, because of “commercial sensitivity”, we may never get to fully understand if value for money has been achieved, while questions over the costs of the merry-go-round of moving different operations are left mostly unanswered.
For supporters of the Victor Hugo Centre deal, it’s an economic enabler, just the kind of bold thinking that is needed and something that will hugely enhance the visitor offering, as well as providing educational opportunities.
But it came at a time when Education was left scraping around to even fund St James, and is now part of a Budget which is not fully funded because of the decision both not to raise revenue this year through income tax rises, but also not to roll back on other spending to balance the books.
An emergency capital spending report has done nothing to address any of this.
Seafront enhancement opened the door
How the Tourist Information building came to be up for grabs is rooted in one of the many States exercises to enhance the seafront.
In Autumn 2018, the Policy & Resources Committee asked people to come forward with ideas for six sites in Town, which included the prime location on the North Esplanade.
Wheels have turned slowly.
So far La Vallette kiosk has been revamped, the nearby area tidied up, while another site, Vivier Bunker, last summer became home to a distillery and shop.
The Round Top Stores has been empty for another year, despite a successful application to open a Thai eatery there.
The TIC was described as “offering stunning views” and there was a suggestion this protected building might be well-suited to a boutique hotel, museum, art gallery or community centre.
It covers three floors over about 7,800 square metres.
Around the same time as that exercise was being carried out, the Probation Service was transferred from rented offices on Fountain Street to the building.
Express has been told that between £200,000 and £300,000 was spent refurbishing the upstairs for that move. More on disabled access a year later. When asked how much it all cost, P&R did not answer.
Some of the rationale for moving Probation was said to be part of thinking at the time that the public sector was spending too much money renting private buildings, but to this day the States continues to rent the offices there.
Probation again faces an uncertain future, its next move undecided.
“Various options within the estate are under consideration for services currently located at the Tourist Information Centre, however the final location is to be determined as it will depend on timelines for the planned Victor Hugo Centre, and also tying in any moves with planned works to other buildings,” a Policy & Resources spokesperson said.
‘When Probation was moved into the Tourist Information Centre, a driving factor was giving the service access to open plan flexible space available within the estate. Probation’s previous offices have been periodically used as decant space whilst works have been carried out on other buildings within the estate (such as the roof works to St James’ Chambers). They are currently partially empty and planning is underway to coordinate expected moves during the course of next year.”
The Tourist Information Centre is on the move to the Market Building. The fit out is being completed. The costs, again, are mostly publicly unknown.
“Lease terms are being finalised with the landlord, and subject to a mutually acceptable agreement being reached, it is anticipated that the move will take place before the 2025 main tourist season.
“The costs of the move itself are likely to be less than £2,000. The rental costs are confidential but will be in line with comparable properties.”
A world class centre for a global icon
Various deputies have been involved in the Victor Hugo Centre’s progression to frontrunner, hopes of a more commercially advantageous venture for the public finances having seemingly vanished.
The charity’s website says it will be an “exciting, interactive and immersive celebration of global icon Victor Hugo and the unique inspiration he found in Guernsey.”
It says the centre will be “world class” – an interactive and immersive museum; a performance and event space and a learning hub.
Led by six directors, the team is working with internationally recognised designers Casson Mann, and award-winning local practices DLM Architects and engineers Dorey Lyle & Ashman.
The ambition is clear.
Moving goalposts on public financing
During the Budget debate, former P&R member David Mahoney was one of the few to raise questions.
Talks with the States Property Unit were held through 2023 and came to a head that Autumn when the group behind it made a presentation to P&R.
“That group had done a lot of prep work and gave a good account of what the centre could become,” he said.
“It was stressed at the meeting that given the finances of SoG, the only support that could be given was a hold on the building for a fixed period whilst they put together their funding plans and raised the funds from private /corporate donors. If they were successful then they would be granted a lease and a peppercorn rent would be applied for a fixed period.
“It was stressed in my discussions before the presentation, and during the presentation, and in a follow up confirmation afterwards that the States would not be able to offer any financial support. There was no ambiguity in this.”
But the new P&R committee, while talking about the need for restraint in public spending, took a different route and added millions more to the deal.
“Given our finances are in an even worse state than they were in late 2023, I was very surprised to see that the new P&R had earmarked up to £2.5m in matched funding,” said Deputy Mahoney.
He does not think this matched funding, which means the States will commit £1 for every £2 raised by those behind the project up to the £2.5m maximum, should go ahead now that the committee has to make savings in capital spending after their income tax hike was rejected.
“It will be interesting to see if Scrutiny run with this to get some more detail on the safeguards in place to ensure that IF P&R goes ahead and provides funds, and the project does not see fruition, what mechanism is in place for taxpayer money to be returned to the public purse.”
During the Budget debate, Deputy Yvonne Burford said at the start of this term she was contacted by some of the principals involved with the Victor Hugo Centre.
She met with them twice and also contacted P&R to ask about the availability of building for what she said sounded to be an extremely exciting venture.
Deputy Burford remains of that opinion and is pleased to see it was agreed they could use the building.
“But what was said to me in those meetings was that in order for them to attract the type of thing that they would need, they needed to be able to have a building so that they could show this to potential funders. They could paint the picture. They could drive a plan with architects. I think a lot of that was done quite quickly.”
She believes, though, that the goalposts have moved from being about the building and she was surprised to see the £2.5m. in the Budget, eventually abstaining in the vote.
The matched funding proposition was passed by 19 votes to 11 (Deputies Sue Aldwell, Chris Blin, David de Lisle, Andrea Dudley-Owen, John Dyke, Sam Haskins, Mark Helyar, Sasha Kazantseva-Miller, Chris Le Tissier, David Mahaoney and Victoria Oliver opposed it).
P&R was due to go before Deputy Burfrod’s Security Committee days after the Budget debate, but that was deferred until “early January” and is still yet to happen.
What is the money for?
P&R continues to have discussions with those behind the Victor Hugo Centre and details of the agreement are being worked on.
The spokesperson said the terms will be “subject to the extent of funds raised and the outcome of financial modelling”.
“The details of the operational arrangements between the VHC and the States will need to be worked up and the extent to which the lease links in with any related agreements is under consideration.”
It is intended that the public funding will contribute towards the construction, refurbishment and fitting out costs of the proposed centre, they said.
“The Policy & Resources Committee will discuss and agree the details of the arrangement with the Board of the Victor Hugo Centre Guernsey LBG.”
When asked why the Centre emerged as the favoured option, they said: “While other parties expressed an interest in the Tourist Information Centre building, the planned Victor Hugo Centre was determined to be the most promising option to support our tourism offer and the wider economy.”
