Replacement CRHS and Southern Swimming Pool

Summary

The request sought plans, cost estimates, and meeting minutes regarding the inclusion of a replacement swimming pool in the new CRHS development. The response disclosed business case extracts and minutes detailing a £6.24 million cost estimate for a 25m pool, discussions on joint funding with King William's College, and the decision to add the pool as a 'bolt-on' to the Treasury paper.

Key Facts

• A new 25m, 6-lane swimming pool complex was proposed as part of the CRHS redevelopment with an additional cost of £6,240,000.
• Discussions in 2016 suggested a 50-50 joint funding model between the Department of Education and King William's College (KWC).
• Local authorities including Castletown, Port St Mary, and Malew expressed support for the proposal, while Santon required more information.
• By December 2019, the cost of the swimming pool was confirmed to be added to the Treasury Paper as a 'bolt-on' to the main school project.
• The Department considered the Arbory Road site the best location for a replacement pool for the South.

Data Disclosed

• £6,240,000
• 25m
• 6 lane
• 2010
• 06/06/17
• 02/05/17
• 18th March 2016
• 6 December 2017
• 7 February 2018
• 06 November 2019
• 04 December 2019
• 29/03/2017
• 25 June 2019
• 1000 capacity
• Option 5B
• Option C

Original Request

We would like to request any plans and cost estimates  pertaining to the replacement building for CRHS, whether they include a replacement swimming pool or not. We would also like to request the minutes, notes or other record from any meeting (either electronic or on paper) relating to discussions about the inclusion or exclusion of a replacement swimming pool with the new CRHS replacement project generated since 2010.

Data Tables (3)

Full Response Text

Department report extracts – costs of replacement pool 06/06/17 CRHS redevelopment business case
In addition options are noted, for the provision of a new swimming pool as part of a new school development, and for the provision of youth and community facilities on the site. In addition the plan also identifies how a new swimming pool complex could be incorporated into the new school development, as part of a southern school and community sporting complex – an additional overall development cost of £6,240,000 has been established based on the provision of a 25m, 6 lane main pool and secondary pool, similar to the Northern Pool (Option 5B, as outlined in Appendix H). We further believe, as the existing Southern Swimming Pool nears the end of its life, that there is a fantastic opportunity to incorporate a new pool provision into the planning of the new school development, to create a sporting hub for the school and the southern community, and confirm we will be seeking Treasury support in due course to an additional business case for this (option 5B).

02/05/17

CRHS BUSINESS CASE OUTLINE AND UPDATE FOR MAY DEPARTMENT MEETING In addition options are noted, for the provision of a new swimming pool as part of a new school development, and for the provision of youth and community facilities on the site. In addition the plan also identifies how a new swimming pool complex could be incorporated into the new school development, as part of a southern school and community sporting complex – an additional overall development cost of £6,240,000 has been established based on the provision of a 25m, 6 lane main pool and secondary pool, similar to the Northern Pool (Option 5B, as outlined in Appendix G).

Develop business case / option study further, for agreement at June Department meeting; I will review in more detail the headline costs established and the basis thereof, which have only recently been issued; the case will :

f. confirm the Department’s current position regarding new replacement Southern swimming pool development options

Extracts from Department minutes Date 18th March 2016 Swimming Pools Negotiations are taking place on the combined use, between CRHS and KWC, of a Southern Swimming Pool to be located on either of the sites. Whilst talks are at an early stage a 6- lane, 25m pool, would be most economically viable allowing for adequate pool space to accommodate KWC, DEC Swimming lessons and public admissions. A 50m pool would potentially carry higher maintenance costs, such as heating etc., although a comprehensive feasibility study would be required to ascertain built and running /maintenance costs of all possible options Mention was made that this would have to be a 50-50 joint funded model, with equal representation from KWC and the local authority of a management board. Further discussions would need to take place with all the key partners.

Date 6 December 2017 Proposed pool at CRHS new school – Discussion took place about the proposed new swimming pool within the future plans for a new CRHS.

Date 7 February 2018 New southern regional swimming pool at CRHS – 4 responses have been submitted by the Southern Local Authorities about proposals to develop a new southern regional pool as part of the CRHS re- development:- • Castletown Commissioners – supportive of a new pool being redeveloped within Castletown, but feel it is inappropriate to offer specific support for CRHS as a location without sight of specific plans • Santon Commissioners – unable to comment at this time without any briefing or further info about plans • Port St Mary Commissioners – supportive of the proposal • Malew Commissioners – supportive of the proposal (Rushen, Port Erin and Arbory Commissioners did not respond within the requested timescale)

Date: 06 November 2019 CRHS new school – presentation. Cost of swimming pool to be added to Treasury Paper as bolt-on.

Date: 04 December 2019 CRHS new school – cost of swimming pool to be added to Treasury Paper as bolt-on. Action complete. Department report extracts – discussion re: replacement pool 29/03/2017 CRHS new school Business case under development in 2016/17; suitability and condition reports now being finalised and findings costed; a full range of costed options will be presented under the business case from status quo to new school and pool; extend and refurbish and new build options will be based on 1000 capacity, with full Post-16.

Extract from DESC email response to Treasury
Date 25 June 2019  Where is the swimming pool plan up to in terms of King Williams College, etc.? The Department has not received any firm proposals from KWC. We believe that the best location for a replacement pool for the South, for school and community use is at our Arbory Road site, and consider that the pool should be progressed as part of the redevelopment of the site at this time. The possible land use / new school form, proposed under Option C (section 6 p98-101), could as outlined in my overview, enable the establishment of an indoor sporting hub including a new pool, to the NE of the site.

Extract from DESC email response to Treasury
Date 25 June 2019 Is a pool included in the £52.6m? No – the Strategic Brief document / costs stated are solely for the school; the pool is a separate project in the pink book (in further years / budget tbc), for which we have previously identified a budget need (at 2017 base) of circa £6.24m

Corporate Services division Department of Education, Sport and Culture Hamilton House Peel Road, Douglas IM1 5EZ Telephone: (01624) 685808 Website: www.gov.im/dec Email: dec@foi.gov.im Our ref: 1776954 19 July 2021

Dear ###

Information requested by: ###

Summary of Process 1. Request received: 04/05/2021 2. Response sent: 11/06/2021 3. Review requested: 23/06/2021

Review of Response

In your communication to Department of Education, Sport and Culture dated 23 June 2021, you raised the following:

We wish to request a review of your decision to withhold information in relation to cost estimates based on the reasoning that disclosure could prejudice the tendering process. We disagree with this reasoning for several reasons: 1. The cost estimates withheld from the response relate to report/minutes extracts of 6 June 2017, 2 May 2017 and 13 November 2019. Figures prepared so long ago would be very out of date in relation to current costs and therefore would not prejudice any tendering process. Indeed this point is further supported by your submission that the tendering is not due to take place in the near future and current cost estimates may be different. 2. According to your response, the cost estimates removed from the above extracts are not those which would be included in any tendering process. Therefore there would not be any prejudice. We appreciate that the figures removed from the extracts were prepared based on prevailing conditions at that time and that circumstances are different now and will judge the estimates accordingly. This follows the Department’s initial response to your request in which you raised the following: We would like to request any plans and cost estimates pertaining to the replacement building for CRHS, whether they include a replacement swimming pool or not.

We would also like to request the minutes, notes or other record from any meeting (either electronic or on paper) relating to discussions about the inclusion or exclusion of a replacement swimming pool with the new CRHS replacement project generated since 2010.

Statutory Considerations 1. Did the public authority respond to your request within the required timescales? 2. Did the public authority provide the information requested? 3. Did the public authority conduct a reasonable search for the information? 4. If the public authority did not provide the information because of the application of a practical refusal reason, was the refusal clear? 5. If the public authority applied an exemption was it correct and was it explained? 6. Did the public authority offer appropriate advice and assistance? 7. Did the public authority advise you of the internal review process and your right of appeal to the Information Commissioner? Outcomes 1. No, the public authority did not answer your request within the statutory time limit however the Department stated: “…We are now considering the request but we need more time to process it, under section 13 of the Freedom of Information Act 2015. This is because a qualified exemption is likely to apply and as a result we require additional time to consider whether any prejudice or harm specified in the identified qualified exemption would result from the disclosure of the information requested and where the balance of the public interest lies. We will now try to respond to you by 8 June 2021.” Subsequent email sent 03/06/2021 to say “We will now aim to respond to you by 11 June 2021”. 2. No, the public authority did not provide the information requested and did not seek further clarification of what was required. 3. The public authority conducted a reasonable search for the information. 4. The application of a practical refusal reason was not applicable. 5. The public authority applied a section 30 exemption correctly and they were explained. It was stated: Disclosure would prejudice the commercial interests of a person (including a company, partnership or another public body - in this case the Department). As section 30 is a qualified exemption and has been applied to the first and third part of your request for information, 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. A public interest test was undertaken which stated:

Factors in favour of disclosure • Disclosure of the information would support transparency and promote openness and accountability to the general public • Accountability for the spending of public funds. • The cost estimates generated so far are not the final costs which will be included as part of the tendering process. • The tendering process is not due to take place in the near future and the current costs estimates may be different when the tendering process begins. Factors in favour of withholding • Ensuring that the Department is getting value for money when purchasing goods and services within this competitive tendering process. • Disclosing the information would prejudice the tendering process in terms of bids received from contractors and this could put some contractors at an unfair advantage, and others at a disadvantage. • The costs of capital programme future schemes within the Isle of Man • Government’s 2021/22 budget have not been released. Therefore a precedent has been set not to disclose estimated costs. • The cost estimates generated so far may be different to the final costs which be included as part of the tendering process and therefore are not necessarily a true reflection of what the costs will be. The Department concluded: In taking these factors into account the Department of Education, Sport and Culture determined that the factors in favour of maintaining the exemption outweigh the factors in favour of disclosing the information. 6. Yes, the public authority did offer appropriate advice or seek to obtain further clarification of the uncertainty of what was requested. 7. Yes, the public authority did advise the requester of the internal review process and their right of appeal to the Information Commissioner. Specific Issues you raised Particular points that you raise in regard to the reasoning that disclosure would prejudice the tendering process: 1. The cost estimates withheld from the response relate to report/minutes extracts of 6 June 2017, 2 May 2017 and 13 November 2019. Figures prepared so long ago would be very out of date in relation to current costs and therefore would not prejudice any tendering process. Indeed this point is further supported by your

submission that the tendering is not due to take place in the near future and current cost estimates may be different. It is in the Department’s interests to ensure that when tender exercises for future projects do take place, those organisations bidding for the work provide accurate and representative cost estimates for the project work. Such bids should not be influenced by information on how much the Department anticipates the project work will cost.
Releasing cost estimates for a capital project that has not yet been subject to a tender exercise would likely harm the ability of the Department to conduct a sound tender exercise and to achieve the best competitive bid for the project work.
2. According to your response, the cost estimates removed from the above extracts are not those which would be included in any tendering process. Therefore there would not be any prejudice. They would not be included in the tendering process however by releasing them as a result of this, or other requests, would mean that they are available in the public domain for an organisation to access readily and hence base their own estimates on rather than actual costings for materials at the time of tendering. 3. We appreciate that the figures removed from the extracts were prepared based on prevailing conditions at that time and that circumstances are different now and will judge the estimates accordingly. While figures were prepared at that point in time they provide a basis for an organisation to work from to devise revised figures as inflation for materials over the period concerned will be known1. This will mean that the organisation looks simply at figures and not actual costs for the necessary materials and resources that will be required at the tender stage, potentially putting the project at risk through work of a lower standard than anticipated or minimising the quality of the materials used to maximise profit.

The Department is of the view that to protect the integrity of the tender process it is in the financial interests of the Island not to release the requested information as it may harm any future tender exercise and hence limit the ability of government to manage the national economy in regards to tendering exercises. Decision

The final decision of this review is that it overruled your complaint.

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 1 https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/building-materials-and-components-monthly- statistics-2012 or as an example https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uplo

[Response truncated — full text is 23,148 characters]