Page 1 of 5

Our Ref: IM109893I

Date: 11 January 2018 Dear REQUESTS UNDER THE CODE OF PRACTICE ON ACCESS TO GOVERNMENT INFORMATION (“the Access Code”) AND THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 2015 (“the Act”) Thank you for your requests under the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information 1996 and the Freedom of Information Act 2015, both dated 9 November 2017.

Your requests

Your requests under the Access Code and the Act were worded virtually identically. The terms of the requests were as follows:

“The DED owns or owned a substantial parcel of land at Ballafletcher, Douglas IOM, zoned for light industrial use. Various planning applications have been made in respect of that land by EFB (IOM) Ltd ("EFB") at various times. Planning application 11/01290/A was approved on 21st August 2012 and again on appeal on 8th January 2013. Within the corresponding planning statement attached to that Planning Application (attached), reference was made to an option granted by the government / DED to EFB to purchase and develop the land at Ballafletcher which was the subject of that planning application. It is understood that the land has substantial commercial value and as government land it is owned by the people of the Isle of Man. However, no details are available as to the terms of the option, who granted it on behalf of the Government, what the terms were and what efforts were made to offer the land on the open market so as to achieve best price, or how the decision was made to offer that option to EFB rather than any other potential purchaser. The process for the grant of that option is opaque.

Department for Enterprise Rheynn Gastid Dellal

Steven Tallach Freedom of Information Co-ordinator 1st Floor St Georges Court Upper Church Street Douglas Isle of Man IM1 1EX Telephone: (01624) 685375 Website: www.gov.im/ded Email: steven.tallach@gov.im

Page 2 of 5

This FOI request therefore seeks answers to the following questions in a permanent form and any relevant documents evidencing the matters raised:

1. The general background to the Option or Options granted to EFB over the land at Ballafletcher. 2. Who within government proposed the Option or Options being granted to EFB? 3. What consideration is payable to Government under the Option or Options? 4. When was the Option first proposed? 5. When was the Option agreed? 6. Who within Government made the decision to offer the Option to EFB? 7. When was that decision to offer the option to EFB made and authorised? 8. Who within Government authorised the decision to offer the option to EFB? 9. When was Treasury concurrence for the Option obtained? 10. Provide details of the process by which EFB was identified as a potential purchaser of /counterparty to the Option?” I wrote to you on 30 November to clarify your request and you responded on 20 December 2017 to confirm that you no longer required “any relevant documents evidencing the matters raised”. Response to your request

A Freedom of Information request can only be made in respect of information created on or before 11 October 2011. As your request is for information created prior to this date we are not obliged to respond to it as a freedom of information request. However as you see from below we have provided answers under the Access Code.

Response under Access Code.

It may be helpful to set out the timeline for the process. In May 2010 the owner of EFB approached DED to express interest in land for mixed use development. On 22 June 2010 the DED Minister at the time agreed a Department paper dated 7 June 2010 proposing that Treasury concurrence for an offer of an option for purchase of the land be given to EFB. On 29 June 2010 a paper was sent to Treasury seeking its concurrence. On 11 August 2010 the Treasury Minister signed a Ministerial Decision dated 9 August 2010 approving an option and subsequent payment.

It should be noted that the option for sale of the land to EFB has now expired and that the Department will shortly be inviting expressions of interest to consider disposal of the land for employment purposes.

In response to your specific questions: “1. The general background to the Option or Options granted to EFB over the land at Ballafletcher.” A DED paper dated 7 June 2010 sets out the background to the option granted to EFB. As this was created before 11 October 2011 this is provided under the Access Code, though with a number of redactions, the reasons for which are set out in the section headed “Redactions of DED paper” below.

Page 3 of 5

“2. Who within government proposed the Option or Options being granted to EFB?” As you will see the paper dated 7 June 2010 states that the owner of EFB approached the Department. “3. What consideration is payable to Government under the Option or Options?” 5% of the valuation of the land was to be subtracted from the purchase price on completion of the purchase. “4. When was the Option first proposed?” A paper to the DED Minister is dated 7 June 2010. This sets out that EFB approached the Department with a request in May 2010. A memo to Treasury seeking its concurrence is dated 29 June 2010. “5. When was the Option agreed?” The option was first approved by the DED Minister on 22 June 2010 and Treasury approved an option payment on 9 August 2010. “6. Who within Government made the decision to offer the Option to EFB?” As referred to above the DED Minister made the decision to provide an option over the land through the attached Ministerial decision paper and to seek Treasury concurrence for the offer of an option on 22 June 2010, while the Treasury Minister gave approval for an option payment on 11 August 2010. “7. When was that decision to offer the option to EFB made and authorised?” As stated above the DED Minister made the decision to seek Treasury concurrence for the offer of an option on 22 June 2010, while the Treasury Minister gave approval for an option payment on 11 August 2010. “8. Who within Government authorised the decision to offer the option to EFB?” As outlined above the Minister for the Department at the time authorised the option and Treasury concurrence was sought and obtained through the then Treasury Minister. “9. When was Treasury concurrence for the Option obtained?” A ministerial decision from Treasury, dated 9 August 2010 and signed by the Treasury Minister on 11 August 2010 “approved the option payment”. “10. Provide details of the process by which EFB was identified as a potential purchaser of /counterparty to the Option?” As detailed above, the DED paper dated 7 June 2010 states that EFB approached the Department to express interest in buying the land. The paper also confirms that the Department held, and continues to hold strategic land available for employment purposes and has on occasion released land directly at market value to encourage economic development. As the option has now expired, the Department will shortly be inviting expressions of interest to consider disposal of the land for employment purposes.

Page 4 of 5

DED paper redactions Firstly we have withheld the value of the land as stated in the paper, under paragraph 7 of Part II of the Access Code (“Effective Management and operation of the Public Service”). The reason that we have withheld this information under this paragraph is that release of the information will likely harm the Department’s competitive position, particularly given that the the Department will shortly be inviting expressions of interest to consider disposal of the land for employment purposes. The Department considers that the public interest in disclosing the information does not outweigh this harm, as the option has now expired. Secondly, we have withheld specific information supplied to the Department by EFB about it’s business plans under paragraph 13 of Part II of the Access Code (“Third Party’s Commercial Confidences”). The reason that we have withheld this information under this paragraph is that it contains information on the individual salaries of those likely to be employed by EFB. We consider that release of information would harm the competitive position of EFB. Once again, the Department considers that the public interest in disclosing the information does not outweigh this harm, as the option has now expired. We have also redacted the memo to remove the personal name of an individual and in addition the signature of the Minister at the time, Allan Bell, under paragraph 12 of Part II of the Access Code (“Personal information”). The reason that we have withheld this information is that we consider disclosure of the information would be likely to contravene the Data Protection Act 2002. We consider the individual would not have had the expectation of their name being released at the time the information was created and that disclosure would be incompatible with the first data protection principle. Again, the Department considers that the public interest in disclosing the information does not outweigh this harm, as the option has now expired. Complaining about the response to your request under the Access Code

The Access Code states, in paragraph 11:

“Complaints that information which should have been provided under the Code has not been provided, or that unreasonable charges have been demanded, should be made first to the Department or body concerned. If the applicant remains dissatisfied, complaints may be made through a Member of Tynwald to the Information Commissioner. Complaints will be investigated by the Information Commissioner who will advise the complainant of his decision.”

Your right to request a review under the Freedom of Information Act 2015

If you are unhappy with the 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 to me at the above address. An electronic version and paper version of our complaint form can be found by going to our website: https://www.gov.im/foireview

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; or

2 Whether we are justified in refusing to give you the information requested.

Page 5 of 5

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 rights to review is 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 www.gov.im/foi. Yours sincerely

Steven Tallach Freedom of Information Co-ordinator

IM109893I Response Letter (public)20100607 DED paper on land at Ballafletcher