Peel marina

Original Request

Since the peel marina has opened what has been the income and operational costs including dealing with the silt What is the estimate for the forthcoming silt removal and where will it be disposed of Clarification: physical dredging, tipping, rolling and transportation of silt

Data Tables (6)

Full Response Text

Department of Infrastructure Sea Terminal Building, Douglas, Isle of Man, IM1 2RF

Contact: Maggie Farmer Telephone: (01624) 686785 Email: maggie.farmer@gov.im

Our ref: 630069 27 November 2018

Dear ###

We write further to your request which was received on 26 October 2018 and which states:

"1. Since the peel marina has opened what has been the (a) income and (b) operational costs (c) including dealing with the silt 2. (a) What is the estimate for the forthcoming silt removal and (b) where will it be disposed of Clarification: physical dredging, tipping, rolling and transportation of silt"

1. (a) & (b) Peel Marina – Income and Operational Costs Peel Marina opened in 2010, however under the Freedom of Information Act the Department is only required to provide information from 2011 onwards. It is not possible to separate out the income and operational costs for Peel Marina. Income for all the harbours is paid into one ‘pot’, the income for the individual harbours is not differentiated. Operational costs come from one central purchase code, for example the Department purchases sodium hypochlorite in bulk for all of the harbours to save costs. Many items would come under the banner of operational costs, including surveys, boat park lighting, costs relating to our technical staff, repair of steps, maintenance and painting of railings and CCTV along with other operational costs.
   However, Ports Division has separately kept track of pontoon income for each of the marinas. The pontoon income for Peel is set out in the table below along with an explanation for any large differences in the figures:

Financial year Total income Reason for difference

2011-12 £100,938.89 2012-13 £102,294.64 2013-14 £110,353.33 2014-15 £102,205.15 2015-16 £88,256.52 Contracts were amended from their original dates to all fall in line with the new financial year 2016-17 £128,470.27 2017-18 £97,562.11 Discounts of up to 75% were applied to some harbour dues* Grand total £730,080.91 * Discounts have been applied if the movement of the vessel is affected by the build- up of silt. This applies to approximately 23 of a total of 120 pontoon berths
1. (c) …including dealing with the silt Your original request asked for the operational costs of dealing with the silt. Clarification was requested and provided on 25th October. The operational costs relating to the physical dredging, transportation, tipping, treatment and rolling etc. of silt from Peel Marina since 2011 broken down by financial year are as follows: 2014/15 Type of cost Cost Physical dredging £9,000.00 Dredging equipment £52,839.00 Transportation £3,000.00 Consultant fees £3,723.00 Total £68,562.00 2015/16 Type of cost Cost Physical dredging & haulage £315,259.39 Associated ancillary costs (e.g. fencing, generator hire) £40,359.68 Consultant fees (plume modelling) £5,221.00 Storage of silt £992.75 Total £361,832.82 2016/17 Type of cost Cost Storage of silt £4,469.81 Total £4,469.81 2017/18 Type of cost Cost Storage of silt £6,265.65 Total £6,265.65

For 2014/15, dredging equipment, including machine and crane hire, has been included as a separate category. The vessel May Queen was purchased second-hand in 2014 at a cost of £90,000 for operation in both Peel and Douglas. Additional pipe work for the vessel was purchased at a cost of £43,716, this figure has been included in the break down even though the intention was for the vessel to dredge in Douglas as well as Peel. 2. (a) Price of disposal While our aim is to provide information whenever possible, in this instance we are unable to provide the information you have requested because exemptions under sections 30 (Economy and commercial interests) and 35 (Conduct of Public Business) of the Act apply to that information. The reasons why the exemptions apply are set out in the paragraphs below.
We are unable to provide information relating to the price of disposal as yet; this is currently subject to the procurement process and the release any indication of price may adversely affect this ongoing process. Section 30 of the Act is a prejudice based exemption, only applying in instances where harm (to the economy) would or would be likely to occur. We are satisfied that disclosing the estimated cost of the silt removal would be likely be harmful to the economy and commercial interests of the Isle of Man. Our consideration of the prejudice and its likelihood of occurring, in respect of section 30(2)(b), is that disclosure of the estimated cost may nullify the procurement process. Release of the estimated cost would be unfair to any contractor who has already submitted a tender. Release may give any contractor who subsequently submits a tender an advantage over other contractors. Section 30 of the Act is a qualified exemption and therefore subject to a public interest test. In assessing where the public interest lies, the following factors have been considered:- Factors in favour of disclosure: • Transparency of the intention to spend public funds on dredging Peel Marina. Factors in favour of maintaining the exemption: • Loss of faith by contractors in the procurement process and Government processes in general; • The procurement process may have to begin again, at cost to the taxpayer and delaying the progress of the Peel Silt Project; • Disclosure would be unfair to any contractor who has already submitted a tender on the basis of the estimated cost of silt removal not being disclosed; • Disclosure could provide an unfair advantage to a contractor who is yet to submit a tender; • Disclosure could cause reputational damage to the Department of Infrastructure with contractors, adversely affecting future working relationships which are essential to the Island’s economy;

Factors which would, or would be likely to, cause prejudice (harm) as follows: • To the integrity of the procurement process as well as to the contractors who will or have submitted tenders - this could lead to damage of reputation and/or business confidence in Government and an inability to guarantee meeting its obligation to the tax payer to obtain the best services at the lowest cost; • The ability of organisations or individuals to participate competitively in a commercial process (procurement) and would (or would be likely to) disadvantage any contractors who have already submitted a tender; it is not possible to say whether this would, or would not, as the tender process is ongoing and we cannot know if contractors have submitted a tender; In taking these factors into account the Department of Infrastructure determined that the factors in favour of maintaining the exemption outweigh the factors in favour of disclosing the information.

Section 35(c), has also been considered. Section 35(c) states that information is qualified exempt information if its disclosure would, or would be likely to otherwise prejudice the effective conduct of public business. In our view, disclosure would affect the conduct of public business as the procurement process is an essential part of Government being able to fairly tender for contracts worth over £100,000.00. This process has to be consistently followed and applied fairly and levelly.
Section 35 of the Act is a qualified exemption and therefore subject to a public interest test. In assessing where the public interest lies, the following factors have been considered:- Factors in favour of disclosure: • Transparency of the intention to spend public funds on dredging Peel Marina. Factors in favour of maintaining the exemption: • Loss of faith by contractors in the procurement process and Government processes in general; • The procurement process may have to begin again, at cost to the taxpayer and delaying the progress of the Peel Silt Project; • Disclosure would be unfair to any contractor who has already submitted a tender on the basis of the estimated cost of silt removal not being disclosed; • Disclosure could provide an unfair advantage to a contractor who is yet to submit a tender; • Disclosure could cause reputational damage to the Department of Infrastructure with contractors, adversely affecting future working relationships which are essential to the Island’s economy; Factors which would, or would be likely to, cause prejudice (harm) as follows: • To the integrity of the procurement process as well as to the contractors who will or have submitted tenders - this could lead to damage of reputation and/or business confidence in Government and an inability to guarantee meeting its obligation to the tax payer to obtain the best services at the lowest cost;

• The ability of organisations or individuals to participate competitively in a commercial process (procurement) and would (or would be likely to) disadvantage any contractors who have already submitted a tender; it is not possible to say whether this would, or would not, as the tender process is ongoing and we cannot know if contractors have submitted a tender; In taking these factors into account the Department of Infrastructure determined that the factors in favour of maintaining the exemption outweigh the factors in favour of disclosing the information.

1. (b) Place of disposal The Department is unable to release this information as yet as the place of disposal is subject to a planning application which has not yet been submitted. Once the planning application for the site of the lagoon has been submitted, the proposed location of the disposal site will be made public. The political member for Ports, Mr Tim Baker MHK, recently gave this interview to Manx Radio which may be of interest to you:- https://www.manxradio.com/news/isle-of-man-news/crucial-step-taken-towards-silt- disposal-says-baker/ In taking these factors into account the Department of Infrastructure determined that the factors in favour of maintaining the exemption outweigh the factors in favour of disclosing the information.

Please quote the reference number 630069 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