Peel Sewerage Treatment Works - Site Options

Summary

The requester asked for the full risk assessment, including plans and drawings, for the Peel Sewerage Treatment Works site options as discussed in a November 2017 committee hearing. Manx Utilities provided some information but withheld specific details regarding personal data, commercial interests, and public business conduct.

Key Facts

• The request was received on 19 February 2018 and responded to on 6 March 2018.
• Information was withheld under exemptions for personal data, economy and commercial interest, and conduct of public business.
• Names of land and site owners were redacted to protect privacy and prevent potential harm.
• Commercial details were withheld to prevent unfair competitive advantage during the tendering process for the Regional Sewage Treatment Strategy- Phase-2 (RSTS2).
• The authority concluded that the public interest in maintaining commercial sensitivity outweighed the interest in disclosure at this critical stage.

Data Disclosed

• 2018-02-19
• 2018-03-06
• 23rd November 2017
• 42.23mins
• Section 25
• Section 30
• Section 35
• IM121475I
• 10 pages
• 1 document

Exemptions Cited

• Section 25 – Absolutely exempt personal information
• Section 30 – Economy and commercial interest
• Section 35 – Conduct of Public Business

Original Request

Please provide me with all of the details and content, including plans and drawings, of the full risk assessment which was prepared for the Board, as disclosed to the hearing on 23rd November 20...

Data Tables (1)

Full Response Text

Manx Utilities • PO Box 177 • Douglas • Isle of Man • IM99 1PS e: foi@manxutilities.im • t: 687687 • www.manxutilities.im

06 March 2018 REFERENCE NUMBER IM121475I

REQUEST UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 2015 (“the Act”)

Dear

Thank you for your online application dated 19 February 2018 requesting the following information, with further clarification (below in italics) provided:

‘Please provide me with all of t he d etails a nd c ontent, i ncluding pl ans a nd drawings, o f t he f ull ri sk a ssessment which wa s pr epared f or t he B oard, as disclosed and referred to at 42.23mins into the hearing on 23rd November 2017 of the Environment and Infrastructure Policy Review Committee.’

Response to Your Request

Our aim is to provide information whenever possible and the information we are able to provide is appended to this letter. In this instance the following exemptions under the Act have been engaged:

· Section 25 – Absolutely exempt personal information
· Section 30 – Economy and commercial interest · Section 35 – Conduct of Public Business

Section 25(2)(a) – Absolutely exempt personal information

The reasons why that exemption applies is that Manx Utilities is satisfied that some of the information as it constitutes personal data of which you are not the data subject under the Data Protection Act 2002.  Manx Utilities is satisfied that in such cases the information amounts to personal data under the Data Protection Act 2002 (DPA)  Manx Utilities is satisfied that disclosure of the information would contravene one of the data protection principles, namely that we can only disclose the information where it would be fair, lawful and meet one of the conditions in schedule 2 of the DPA and in this case, none of those conditions have been met. The exemption has been applied to the names of various land and site owners, on a case by case basis. When deciding on whether it would be fair, lawful and meet one of the conditions in schedule 2 of the DPA, the following factors have been considered:

• Expectation of privacy for all parties • Potential harm that could be caused by disclosing that person’s name

Section 30 – Economy and commercial interest 30 (1)(a) – the financial interest

The most appropriate financial outcome for Manx Utilities ultimately presents the most appropriate financial outcome for Manx Utilities customers i.e. Island residents. Inability to achieve this is likely to be of detriment to Island residents as additional costs would have to be passed on to the end user.

30(2)(b) – commercial interests

A disclosure under the Act is deemed to be a disclosure to the world rather than a disclosure to an individual requestor. We must therefore protect both the current, and future, commercial interests of all parties involved. Including any individual commercial packages negotiated or for consideration, or the budget estimates relating to capital purchases.

Manx Utilities is currently embarked on an associated exercise with contracted service providers which are required for the successful implementation of the Regional Sewage Treatment Strategy- Phase-2 (RSTS2) as set out in the programme for Government.

The commercial and reputational sensitivity of these processes requires a cautious approach. Disclosure of this information would be likely to prejudice the commercial interest of Manx Utilities in that it would provide unfair competitive advantage to potential contracted service providers.

In respect of the qualified exemptions applied under section 30(1)(a) & 30(2)(b) they are subject to the public interest test. The public interest must be something that is of serious concern and benefit to the public at large and not merely something of individual interest.

Public Interest Test

Factors in favour of disclosing the information include:

• To promote transparency of decision making in Government and the reasoning behind any decisions which are taken. • To scrutinise the actions of Government and be able to hold Government to account for its decision making. • Securing the best use of public resources.

Factors in favour of maintaining the exemptions include:

• The underlying purpose of these exemptions is to protect the economy and commercial interests. • Disclosure of this information c ould be used to ac hieve individual competitive advantage. • The disclosure of this information is likely to prejudice the success of tendering processes, which are necessary for the successful implementation of RSTS2. • Progression of the RSTS2 programme has reached a critical stage and the immediate nature o f t he c ommercial s ensitivity a ssociated w ith t he t endering p rocesses outweigh public interest. • Disclosure o f this i nformation wi ll not only affect M anx U tilities b ut also Island residents. • This information will ultimately reside in the public domain, at which point, it will be open to public scrutiny. • There is no evidence to suggest that disclosure of this information will serve a wider public interest.

In assessing the weight to be attributed to each aspect of these arguments, Manx Utilities has considered that disclosure of the information subject to the prejudice based qualified exemptions has the potential to cause harm to a crucial Island infrastructure programme and the associated commercial sensitivities.

Manx Utilities concludes that the risk of harm from disclosure outweighs any benefit that could be gained by the general public as a result of the information being disclosed.

Taking these considerations into account Manx Utilities has determined that t he factors in favour of mai ntaining the e xemptions o utweigh the fac tors i n favour of d isclosing the information.

35(c)– Conduct of Public Business

A disclosure under the Act is deemed to be a disclosure to the world rather than a disclosure to an individual requestor. We must therefore protect both the current, and future, business interests of all parties involved to allow us to adhere to due process and ensure appropriate governance is employed at all times.

Public Interest Test

Factors in favour of disclosing the information include:

• To promote transparency of decision making in Government and the reasoning behind any decisions which are taken. • To scrutinise the actions of Government and be able to hold Government to account for its decision making. • To inform public debate on a matter of national strategic importance.

Factors in favour of maintaining the exemptions include:

• Disclosure o f t his information c ould impair future decision mak ing in r elation t o strategic projects and planning
• The public authority needs a ‘safe space; in which to develop ideas or make decisions and disclosure may prejudice this and/or interfere with or detract from or undermine the decision making process. • Progression of the RSTS2 programme has reached a critical stage, including the immediate nature of the sensitivity associated with the planning process.
• This information will ultimately reside in the public domain, at which point, it will be open to public scrutiny. • There is no evidence to suggest that disclosure of this information will serve a wider public interest.

In assessing the weight to be attributed to each aspect of these arguments, Manx Utilities has considered that disclosure of the information subject to the prejudice based qualified exemptions has the potential to cause harm to a crucial Island infrastructure programme and the associated project sensitivities and the safe space in which to conduct public business.

Manx Utilities concludes that the risk of harm from disclosure outweighs any benefit that could be gained by the general public as a result of the information being disclosed.

Taking these considerations into account Manx Utilities has determined that t he factors in favour of mai ntaining the e xemptions o utweigh the fac tors i n favour of d isclosing the information.

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 at the address or email below. An electronic and paper version of our complaint form can also be found on our website. If you would like a paper version of our complaint form sent to you by post, please don’t hesitate to let us know. 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 t o r esolve a matter b y n egotiation, conciliation, me diation or an other fo rm o f alternative dispute resolution and will have regard to any outcome of this in making any subsequent decision.

More detailed information on your rights to review is on the Information Commissioner’s website a t: www.inforights.im. Should y ou h ave an y q ueries, p lease d o n ot h esitate t o contact us.

Yours sincerely

Coordination Team

PEEL SEWERAGE TREATMENT WORKS SITE OPTIONS

The Board is requested to:

Note the options which have been considered with respect to providing a viable site for a Sewerage Treatment Works (STW) servicing Peel and approve the pursuance of the procurement of property with an authorised expenditure of

subject to Treasury approval (through an FD29 request if necessary i.e. procurement of land at a higher purchase price than the Government’s valuation).

INTRODUCTION

At its meeting of 30 June 2017, the Board considered paper MU1737 - Peel Sewerage Treatment Works - Site Options. At that juncture, it became known that a newly identified site for the STW in Peel had been identified and this had not been considered within paper MU1737. The Board requested that a further evaluation take place which was to include the new s ite (o wned b y ). T his p aper t herefore c onsiders t he ad vantages an d disadvantages associated with each site that has been identified for the potential development of a STW to service the settlement at Peel including the site owned by .

The sites are:

1. Fields opposite the decommissioned power station known as Peel ‘A’ Station and in the ownership of ;
2. Fields i n t he o wnership o f t o t he s outh of t he d isused p ower station, on the western side of the river Neb and opposite land;
3. Property an d fi elds i n the o wnership o f , o n t he s outhern an d we stern boundary of the the western side of the river Neb and slightly south of land.
4. Fields towards the southern boundary of the Government owned Knockaloe Farm, near to the disused quarries.

Further information regarding each site is provided here:

Site 1 –

Location: To the immediate south of Peel power station – eastern bank of the River Neb. Elevation 6.4m – 6.9m, average 6.65m.

Despite protracted negotiations on the acquisition of this land, the landowner has retained position of wanting to either sell the entire area or for Manx Utilities to procure just the area needed for the site . This has been initially costed at approximately and therefore a gulf exists between

sale aspirations and the budget for the project and the Government valuation of the field area required for the project. There is also the very strong possibility that the site will not be accepted by the planners as the northern boundary is within the blast safety zone for the fuel storage depot tanks in the immediate vicinity of the power station.

The proposal would require an investment in excess of for the new roadway in addition to the land purchase price and would tie up the project with an undefinable period of delay which would seriously jeopardise the possibility of achieving the Programme for Government objective s et fo r M anx Utilities fo r t his p roject to b e o perational wi thin t he t erm o f t his administration.

A further factor against the selection of this site is the very strong likelihood of numerous planning objections from many residents of Close Chairn and from residents along the A27 Glenfaba road.

Due to the owners’ demands, the identified planning issues, resident’s concerns, anticipated time delays certain to occur with this site and the major mismatch between owner’s valuation and our own via the Government land valuer, it was therefore concluded that

land did not represent a deliverable solution.

Site 2 – Land

Location: Opposite to on the western bank of the Neb. Elevation 5.5m – 17m, average 11.25m.

have advised that would be willing in principle an d s ubject t o an ag reement o n p rice, t o s ell a p arcel o f l and fo r t he ST W development. T his p arcel o f l and i s al most e xactly opposite t he afo rementioned land belonging to albeit it would require a new access bridge as it is situated on the western side of the river Neb.

Negotiations have been opened with and thereafter (at our cost) an independent Estate Agent has valued the land advising that the should expect per acre for this land, and as we require 4 acres a total in the range of

As this site is on the western side of the river Neb and as it is slightly further south than the proposed STW location in land there are additional costs associated with its development, namely:

a) A new bridge to provide access across the river at an estimated capital cost of

b) Enabling works plus improved access south along the heritage trail for c. 100metres at an estimated cost of

c) Additional piping to and from the proposed site at an estimated cost of

Therefore the total additional cost (including land purchase at and inclusive of 10% contingency) of pursuing development at this site is of the order of

Preliminary discussions with a Senior Government Planner about this site have indicated that they have no current objections in principle if this site was to be proposed for this purpose.
With a willing seller, subject to agreement on price, it is concluded that this site is therefore deemed deliverable.

Site 3 – Property and Land

Location: Access adjacent to the North-West parapet of Glenfaba Bridg

[Response truncated — full text is 17,912 characters]