Urban Development Agency Models - PWC Report

Summary

The request sought details regarding the PwC report on Urban Development Agency models, including costs, distribution, and internal memos. The Department for Enterprise disclosed the report cost, dates, and distribution lists but withheld internal memos under a public interest exemption.

Key Facts

• The PwC report cost GBP 24,850.
• The first draft of the report was received on 10 May 2019.
• The report was presented to the Minister and Political members on 11 September 2019.
• Internal memos were withheld to protect the formulation of government policy.
• The final report was published in November 2019.

Data Disclosed

• GBP 24,850
• 10 May 2019
• 11 September 2019
• 23 October 2019
• November 2019
• 29 March 2021
• 20 April 2021
• 1727857

Exemptions Cited

• Section 34 of the Freedom of Information Act 2015 (Formulation or development of government policy)

Original Request

1727857) 

Data Tables (1)

Full Response Text

Freedom of Information Co-ordinator 1st Floor, St Georges Court Upper Church Street, Douglas Isle of Man IM1 1EX

Telephone: (01624 682381) Website: www.gov.im/ded Email: anthony.walker@gov.im

Our ref: 1727857 20 April 2021

Dear ###

We write further to your request which was received on 29 March 2021 and which states:

"a) copy of engagement letter and all correspondence relating to the engagement of PricewaterhouseCoopers [PWC] b) terms of reference for the Report- PWC Report c) cost of the Report -PWC Report. d) date the Department received a draft of the Report - PWC Report e) covering letter/emails attached to the delivery of the PWC Report. f) the DfE internal distribution of the Report -PWC Report g) minutes of any meetings discussing the Report -PWC Report h) the distribution of the PWC Report to other departments, Chief Executives of departments, Clerk of Tynwald. i) memos created in relation to the PWC Report."

Our response to your request is as follows: a) The engagement of PwC for this project was formalised by way of a response to a brief placed on the procurement portal, and subsequent agreement for consultancy services. Copies of the brief, response and agreement are supplied. b) The terms of reference are provided by the brief, response and agreement as already supplied. c) GBP 24,850 d) The first draft of the report was received on the 10th May 2019. e) The covering emails for the delivery of the final report are attached. f) The report was initially received by the Head of Policy and Strategy. Subsequently, the report was distributed to the Chief Executive, Deputy Chief Executive and Policy Development Manager (Built Environment). The report was also circulated to the Minister and Political members by way of a Department paper and presentation by representatives of PwC on the 11th September 2019. g) Minutes of the Department meeting held on the 11th September 2019, during which the report was presented by PwC are attached. Minutes of the Department meeting held on the 23rd October 2019 are also attached.

h) The report was distributed to officers of the Department of Infrastructure, Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture, Cabinet Office and Treasury. The Report was not distributed directly to the Clerk of Tynwald, although the final report was subsequently published in November 2019. Additionally, the report was circulated to the National Strategy Group and Environment and Infrastructure Committee, both formal sub-committees of the Council of Ministers. i) While our aim is to provide information whenever possible, in this instance the information is exempt from disclosure under section 34 of the Act as it is held by The Department for Enterprise and it relates to the formulation or development of government policy and communications between Ministers. As insert section 34 is a qualified exemption, it is subject to a public interest test. The public interest must be something that is of serious concern and benefit to the public at large. Factors in favour of disclosure There is a public interest in disclosing factual information used to provide an informed back-ground to decision taking.

Factors in favour of withholding Preserve a safe space for ministers to debate live issues away from external interference and distraction. Public exposure of the information may compromise candid and robust discussions about policy, the exploration of extreme options, the keeping of detailed records and the taking of hard choices, where it might prejudice good working relationships, the neutrality of civil servants and ultimately the quality of government.

In taking these factors into account the Department for Enterprise determined that the factors in favour of maintaining the exemption outweigh the factors in favour of disclosing the information. Attached supporting documents:

Please quote the reference number 1727857 in any future communications.

Your right to request a review

If you are unhappy with this response to your freedom of information request, you may ask us to carry out an internal review of the response, by completing a complaint form and submitting it electronically or by delivery/post.

An electronic version of our complaint form can be found by going to our website at https://services.gov.im/freedom-of-information/Review . If you would like a paper version of our complaint form to be sent to you by post, please contact me and I will be happy to arrange for this. Your review request should explain why you are dissatisfied with this response, and should be made as soon as practicable. We will respond as soon as the review has been concluded.

If you are not satisfied with the result of the review, you then have the right to appeal to the Information Commissioner for a decision on; 1. Whether we have responded to your request for information in accordance with Part 2 of the Freedom of Information Act 2015; or 2. Whether we are justified in refusing to give you the information requested.
In response to an application for review, the Information Commissioner may, at any time, attempt to resolve a matter by negotiation, conciliation, mediation or another form of alternative dispute resolution and will have regard to any outcome of this in making any subsequent decision. More detailed information on your right to a review can be found on the Information Commissioner’s website at www.inforights.im. Should you have any queries concerning this letter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Further information about freedom of information requests can be found at www.gov.im/foi.

I will now close your request as of this date.

Yours sincerely

CONFIDENTIAL Page 1

Chairman ………………………………..

Minutes of the Department Meeting held on 11 September 2019 @ 10:00am Boardroom, St George’s Court

Present:

Mr Lawrie Hooper MHK, Political Member (LH) (Chair) Mrs Daphne Caine MHK, Political Member (DC)

Mr Tim Crookall MLC, Political Member (TC)

In attendance: Mr Mark Lewin, Chief Executive (ML)

Mr Carl Hawker, Deputy CEO (CH)

Mr Andrew Stewart, Head of Policy & Strategy (AS)

Apologies:

Hon. Laurence Skelly MHK, Minister (Minister)

Mr Rob Callister MHK, Political Member (RC)

Minutes:

Personal Secretary

Note:
Agenda Items were taken out of order.

PRESENTATIONS

Note:
Representatives from KPMG joined the meeting – Leo Wasley (LW) and Steve

Billinghurst (SB)

Note:
Mr Stephen Bradley (SBr), Business Agency Chair, joined the meeting.

386/19 Development Agency Proposals – Annex A

LW and SB provided a presentation in relation to a comparative study of current best practice for Urban Development Agency models with the following headline slides:

• Urban Development Progression • A Phased Approach • Development Incentives • What Steps Can Government Take To Make Development Easier • A Development Agency For The Isle of Man • Recommendations

In depth discussions were held around the proposals, including examples of other development agency propositions including Enterprise Partnerships, comparisons with Jersey Development Corporation, a spectrum of examples based on the powers and abilities for each proposition. CONFIDENTIAL Page 2

Chairman ………………………………..

SB outlined the Jersey Development Agency model and how their remit was similar to that of the Isle of Man. It was noted that this model had complete freedom to run as commercially as necessary and owned operational assets with the Agency being taken out of the political arena. Discussions were held as to the political position in relation to the selling of surplus property and how this would be viewed by the public.

Discussions were also held in relation to the construction of any Memorandum of Understanding and structures that would need to be in place to ensure that the Agency worked. Discussion also covered the market value of sites and how this was difficult to ascertain along with considerations in relation to how a Development Agency would be funded including suggestions around seed funding. ‘Duchy’ structures were also considered.

It was agreed that there were a number of steps to be undertaken before the Development Agency was set up to ensure that the remit of the Agency had the best possible outcome e.g. around planning matters and development incentives.

Discussions were held around development incentives and impediments including development financing barriers, Government funding, seed capital and making propositions economically attractive. SB outlined investment fund modelling for infrastructure options, property fund and infrastructure fund proposals and the challenges that arise around this type of funding.
Public / private funding was also discussed.

The steps that could be undertaken to make development easier were considered, including Planning, tendering processes, lease lengths and joint ventures. ML requested that SB make reference to financing structures in the final report.

Discussions were held in relation to a phased approach for the creation of a Development Agency along with requirements that would need to be in place to ensure that the Agency would ‘work’. It was suggested that the Agency would not get involved with the development of the overall strategy, but would be key to implementing the strategy once agreed.

SB commented that the proposals needed to be bold to ensure positive results in the future.

Discussions were held around the proposed timeline for the development of the Agency and what external assistance would be needed to ensure the best outcomes. It was considered that the development of the Agency would require specialist experts to develop and to ensure the overall results were fit CONFIDENTIAL Page 3

Chairman ……………………………….. for purpose. It was also considered that the ‘implementation team’ should sit outside the Department / Government.

Discussions were held in relation to investment structures, where investment would come from and who was looking to invest in development, institutional investment and the need to identify and expand on this area in the report tabled. It was believed that the key to developing the best Development Agency proposition was to ensure that the Agency had investment freedom from Government. SBr commented that traditional investment from Pension Fund holders had changed as many were no longer allowed to invest in offshore ventures.

LH commented that he saw the development of the Agency as a 3 strand model. The Agency (1) having a development process and range of incentives, (2) an investing / fund provision, and (3) directing operation matters.

Consideration was held around the requirement for public engagement to get buy-in and best outcomes when considering propositions for Government owned land.

It was noted that it was a Tynwald Resolution that the Department should take forward the plans to set up a Development Agency. ML requested that an extra page be added to the presentation to set the context in relation to the Tynwald Resolution.

LH and ML thanked LW and SB for their presentation and requested final amendments to the report before it was finalised including (1) setting of the context for the report in relation to the Tynwald Resolution, (2) reference to Financing structures to make development easier and (3) broadening out proposals in relation to investment structures.

SB requested that the Tynwald Resolution be forwarded to him for his perusal.

CH advised that the final report was due to be published in October and that the Department were tasked with providing a response to the December Sitting of Tynwald together with the other Government Departments involved in the working group.

Note:
LW and SB left the meeting at this juncture. Ownership of the Douglas Masterplan/Regeneration Committee was discussed and it was considered that this could sit within the Development Agency. ML provided an update in relation to the Regeneration Committees and the Department’s proposal for 6 Committees for each area of the Island.
CONFIDENTIAL Page 4

Chairman ……………………………….. Treasury had indicated that they believed that there was only a need for 4 Committees and that these did not require Political membership. ML added that Minister Skelly MHK had indicated that he would not be actively involved as it was at odds to what the Department had suggested and advised that this was now with Cabinet Office and Treasury to progress.

Note:
SBr left the meeting at this juncture.

ACTION: AS to forward a copy of the Tynwald Resolution in relation to the

development of the Development Agency to SB.

ACTION: SB to make the amendments identified to the presentation tabled.

CONFIDENTIAL Page 1

Chairman ………………………………..

Minutes of the Department Meeting held on 23 October 2019 @ 10:00am Boardroom, St George’s Court

Present:

Hon. Laurence Skelly MHK, Minister (Minister) (Chair)

Mr Rob Callister MHK, Political Member (RC)

Mrs Daphne Caine MHK, Political Member (DC)

Mr Tim Crookall MLC, Political Member (TC)

In attendance: Mr Mark Lewin, Chief Executive (ML)

Mr Carl Hawker, Deputy CEO (CH)

Mr Andrew Stewart, Head of Policy & Strategy (AS)

Apologies:

Mr Lawrie Hooper MHK, Political Member (LH)

Minutes:

Personal Secretary

Note:
Agenda items were taken out of order.

REDACTED MINUTES

445/19 Development Agency (NSG Paper) - Annex G

ML provided background to the paper tabled and in depth discussions were held as to which Department would be the right vehicle to take forward and own the ‘company structure’. It was noted that an update from the cross Department working group on Unoccupied Urban Sites was due to go forward to December Sitting of Tynwald.

In his absence, LH had circulated a note in advance of the meeting with regards to his views as to where the Development Agency would be best positioned. These were noted.

The Minister commented that he was happy for the Department to lead only if the correct funding was in place before doing so.

ML commented that if the Department were to lead it would require the provision of a person(s) with specialist knowledge to be brought on board.

AS provided background to the PWC Report tabled and the process that now needed to be undertaken including who would take forward the further work CONFIDENTIAL Page 2

Chairman ……………………………….. require to set up of the Agency, then to decide who the future owners of the ‘company entity’ would be.

Discussions were then held around what property, site

[Response truncated — full text is 15,378 characters]