Jersey Heritage Trust development strategy for Mont Orgueil Castle and basis for the calculation for increase in admission fees

1240/5(1794)

QUESTIONS TO BE ASKED OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE FINANCE AND ECONOMICS COMMITTEE ON TUESDAY, 18th FEBRUARY 2003

BY DEPUTY G.C.L. BAUDAINS OF ST. CLEMENT

Question 1

With regard to the Jersey Heritage Trust's Development Strategy for Mont Orgueil Castle, has the Committee been informed by the Trust -

(a )  how  the  forecast  increase  in  admission  income  of £102,000  as  detailed  in  paragraph  9.2.3.  was

calculated? and,

( b ) w h e ther the works in the Development Plan have been costed and whether any remaining balance of

the £3m grant will be sufficient to cover these costs?

Answer

1. The position with regard to the forecast increase in admission income for Mont Orgueil wasclearly set out on pages145and146of the Development Strategy document.The projected increaseinadmission is in fact £80,000, and not £102,000,and the underlying assumptions behind the calculation are set outinNote 1, page 146 of the document.It states - "Following the completion of the proposed development it is assumed that visitor numbers will increase by 20 per cent and that the castle's enhanced attraction will justify a price increase of 20 per cent above the 2002 levels. In the absence of any development over the next three years, income would continue to decline at the recent rate of around 5 per cent per annum".
2. The works in the Development Plan have been costed. Thereis a P70-style' committeecomprising the Chairman  of the  Trust,  a  trustee, the  Director and two senior  staff  of the Jersey Heritage  Trust, a representative of the States Treasury, the Architect and the Quantity Surveyor.Only last week they received Cost Plan ReportNo. 6 andCostManagementReportNo.18 from the Quantity Surveyor. A copy of the minutes ofeach meeting is circulated to the Treasury.

T h e Audit and Risk Management Division of the States Treasury reviewed the Trust's capital expenditure

controls process in May 2002. The report on the review confirmed that best practice procedures were being followed. Two recommendations, which were fully implemented, were made to enhance the control of capital expenditure procedures rather then denote any major weaknesses.

A  t the present time the Trust believes that, provided there are no significant further delays, projected costs as

now known can and will be met without increased States' funding.

Question 2

Is the Committee satisfied that the works detailed in the Plan comply with the Trust's obligations under the terms of the Usufruct and the States' obligations to international conventions?

Answer

The terms of the Usufruct are repeated in section 1.3 of the Development Strategy. In summary, they require the Jersey  Heritage  Trust  to  maintain,  restore  and  develop  the  Castle  and  ensure  its  preservation  for  future generations, promote its historical legacy and preserve its historical and archeological integrity. These aims may be achieved in differing ways, but the Finance and Economics Committee is satisfied that the actions proposed by the Jersey Heritage Trust are not contrary to its obligations under the terms of the Usufruct.

The Trust is well aware that Jersey has ratified the Granada and Valetta Conventions and believes that the Development Strategy complies with all the guidelines set down in those conventions. The Finance and Economics Committee has no view on this matter, but compliance will be determined by the Environment and Public Services Committee as a result of a recent planning application.