Gorey Promenade

Request 715533117

Please provide copies of contracts from over the past 5 years and detailed work plans related to the gardening contract for the Gorey Promenade. with specific reference to the untamed trees at the easterly end. 

Response

The requested information is exempt under Article 33(b) Commercial Interests of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011 as details of the gardening contracts and work plans are considered commercially sensitive.

Article 33 is a qualified exemption; therefore, a public interest test has been applied and is shown at the end of this response.

Article applied

Article 33 - Commercial interests

Information is qualified exempt information if –

(a) it constitutes a trade secret; or

(b) its disclosure would, or would be likely to, prejudice the commercial interests of a person (including the scheduled public authority holding the information).

Public interest test

In applying this article, the following considerations were taken into account.  

Public interest considerations favouring disclosure   

• Disclosure of the information would ensure the general public are informed about the work plans related with gardening and specifically in relation to the untamed trees at the easterly end.

• Disclosure of the information would support transparency and promote accountability to the general public, preventing misuse of public contracts and favouritism.

• Disclosure would also promote trust in the Scheduled Public Authority (SPA) by showing openness

Public interest considerations favouring withholding the information    

• The disclosure of the gardening contracts and work plans could potentially disadvantage the contractor’s and the SPA’s ability to retain commercial advantage in any future tender process.

• This could also result in the SPA’s inability to secure best value for the taxpayer and this will likely prejudice the SPA as its bargaining power decreases. 

• Contract documents can contain proprietary methodologies, pricing structures, and operational strategies developed by the contractor. Making these public would unfairly advantage competitors and potentially reduce market participation in future tenders.

• The disclosure of the work plans may result in misinformed public debate regarding any mutually agreed changes to the original work plan.  Therefore, this could jeopardise the business relationship between the SPA and the contractor.

• The disclosure of the work plans can invite undue interference from third parties who may misinterpret timelines or attempt to influence operational decisions, disrupting service delivery. For example, public stakeholders may react to methodologies used or maintenance schedules without understanding the technical or regulatory rationale, causing unnecessary delays or conflicts.

• Technical terms, seasonal adjustments, or contingency protocols within work plans can be misunderstood by non-specialists. This may lead to misinformation and mischaracterisation of the contractor’s performance. For example, seasonal reductions in mowing frequency for environmental reasons might be wrongly interpreted as neglect or cost-cutting.

Considering all considerations above, while transparency and accountability is important, the public interest in disclosure must be weighed against potential harm caused by prejudice of the commercial interests and the risks of misinformation.  

The SPA has concluded that, on balance, the risk of causing harm caused by prejudice of the commercial interests and or concerns or spreading misinformation, the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the benefits disclosing the information​

Internal Review Request

I would like too ak for an internal review of this response. 

I  believe I made clear the purpose of my request which was to establish why  a once beautifully  manicured area of the promenade was abandoned leading to  the trees grrowinbg in an unwieldily  fashion,  This is is the  public interest as the man and height of the trees was used in a  recent planning application for an electricity  substation and bin store which thankfully was rejected. 

I sent in photos to be added to the application showing how the area previously looked.  The contractors are clearly given a job sheet with instructions. I assume that the instructions would be the same for ALL contractors therefor I cannot see how this particular bit of information is commercially sensitive. 

I would also like to understand if the intention was to reject on commercial sensitivity why it took almost a month to respond

Internal Review Response

This internal review has been conducted by an official of appropriate seniority who has not been involved in the original decision. As part of their review, they will be expected to understand the reasons behind the original response, impartially determine whether the response should be revised, and how so, considering the request and the information held, any relevant exemptions, or other relevant matters under the Law.  

The Internal Review Panel was asked to review the original response and confirm the following:  

Does the FOI request relate to a body to which the Law applies, or information held by a body covered by the Law?  

If the answer is no, all the other questions are not applicable.      

Further questions if above is a yes:   

i. Was the right information searched for and reviewed? 

ii. Was the information supplied appropriately?

iii. Was information appropriately withheld in accordance with the articles applied and were the public interest test/ prejudice test properly applied?

Following discussion, it was agreed by the Panel that the decision was upheld.