HLF withdraws GC museum funding
Heritage Lottery Fund blames project delays and risks for ending major association with Leicester North museum project.
The Great Central Railway says it is “completely and utterly flabbergasted” by the Heritage Lottery Fund’s decision to withdraw its offer of £9.5 million for its Leicester museum project. Lottery bosses ‘surprised’ the GCR and Leicester City Council on December 13 when it declared that it would not allow the ‘Bridging the Nation’ project to complete its Stage 2 submission, despite its success in applying for a £495,000 Stage 1 development grant in 2015. ‘Bridging the Nation’ is due to be built alongside the GCR’s Leicester North terminus, and display 12‑15 exhibits loaned by the National Collection, including ‘Improved Director’ No. 506 Butler-Henderson and ‘V2’ No. 4771 Green Arrow. The HLF originally hoped that it could open in 2019, later revised to 2021. Jonathan Platt, Head of HLF East Midlands, explained: “HLF has worked closely with the GCR and partners over the last two and a half years in the development phase of this large and complex project. “During this time, the project has experienced a number of difficulties and delays. The HLF board recognised that Leicester City Council and other partners were now proposing to take over the project and to provide financial support, and other expertise. “However, the board had ongoing concerns about outstanding risks, including continuing extended timescales, future operational costs and management arrangements, and the potential for costs to increase further. It is with regret that the HLF board has decided to withdraw from this project.” He added: “We realise that this will be disappointing news for all parties, but we have a responsibility for distributing money raised by National Lottery players, and the projects we invest in must be able to demonstrate that they offer best value for money and have the ability to survive in the long term.” It added: “HLF has yet to receive the second round application, which is now six months overdue.” It added a further list of concerns: In July 2017, the GCR advised the HLF that due to capacity it was unable to deliver a complex project of this size. The GCR proposed that Leicester City Council become project leader through the establishment of a new independent trust to operate the new museum. A request for a further extension to the Development phase has been received, putting the project a year over deadline for Round 2 submission. As a result, the cost of building the new museum was likely to increase further. Operating and running costs for the new museum were unclear. Both the GCR and Leicester City Council refute the fund’s assertions, in particular that the project had inherent risk. GCR Managing Director Michael Gough told Steam Railway: “I’m absolutely on the ceiling about it. “Risk is a vague term, but the bottom line is that there is no risk. “The Mayor [Sir Peter Soulsby] has volunteered to underwrite any overrun; it would be fully underwritten by the city – he was emphatic about that… the risk lies with applicants.” £4.7m of the overall £18m project had already been pledged by the city council, and the gap was to have been filled by in‑kind contributions from the railway. The railway explained that timescale overruns of this nature are not uncommon in HLF‑supported projects and that some of this was caused by the departure of Chief Executive Andy Munro earlier this year, the need to change the building
contractor, and because the original plans submitted by the selected architects were over-budget. The GCR added that the development of the museum’s themes, stories, object selection and public consultation were all things that “take time”. At the time of the GCR handing over responsibility of the project to LCC, the HLF had requested a thorough five-year business plan for the railway. “We always had an open discussion and we now have a strong business case”, said GCR Company Secretary and Accountant Lili Tabiner. “It’s not just the business plan – the city developed a substantial piece of work, including market research and other parts.” However, in its rejection letter to the GCR, the HLF said: “The board also felt that the rationale had shifted… future viability [of the railway] was not dependent on the museum going ahead.” Contends the GCR’s Managing Director: “That wasn’t an issue. We felt that it added value. I feel that this eases their [the HLF’s] own consciences.” Previously, the HLF had assisted the GCR in restructuring the railway’s board. Mr Gough said that he had “sleepless nights trying to figure it out” [the HLF’s withdrawal] and described Sir Peter Soulsby as “hopping mad”. In a December 14 statement, the mayor said: “I can only imagine that the HLF is overcommitted and needs to claw this money back for other projects.”
THE BOARD HAD ONGOING CONCERNS ABOUT OUTSTANDING RISKS JONATHAN PLATT, HEAD OF HLF EAST MIDLANDS I’M ABSOLUTELY ON THE CEILING ABOUT IT MICHAEL GOUGH, MANAGING DIRECTOR, GCR
Sir Peter also said: “If this museum had been at the Nottingham end of the GCR, I have no doubt it would have flown through the approval process.” LCC said that the HLF had awarded Nottingham 150% more money than to Leicester since 2011. “Their Nottingham-based regional director was clearly determined that this project was going to be ditched. There is a very clear bias against Leicester.” Despite the significant setback, the museum project team intends to see the project through to completion. “We’re now on Plan B,” Michael Gough said, “but we’ve got to be circumspect. There is a lot of energy and enthusiasm between the GCR and the city council, and great cooperation. All that has got to be channelled into something else – it can’t just drift away. “We need to think about how we go forward.” Aside from previous budgetary concerns, the winning design for the museum (by Wilkinson Eyre), was met with mixed reaction. “We will have to go back to the original specification and there are thoughts about changing the original design,” Mr Gough added. “If we were to start from scratch, a roundhouse might be a better option.”