Maintenance and investigation history of Water Main

​​​Request 739101357

1

The maintenance history of the Water Main (including risk assessments) for the five-year period immediately prior to the Incident.

2

Investigations undertaken following the failure of the Water Main.

3

The nature and extent of any repair works to the Water Main following the Incident; and

4

Any previous leaks from the Water Main in the five-year period immediately prior to the Incident and any remedial works undertaken to address such leaks.

Response

​1 to 4

Jersey Water are responsible for mains water, therefore, the information requested is not held by the Scheduled Public Authority, therefore, Article 3 of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011 applies, however, it may be held by Jersey Water so you might wish to send your request in writing to:

Jersey Water, St Helier, Jersey, JE1 1JW

It should be noted that Jersey Water is not a Scheduled Public Authority under the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011, therefore, they are not required to respond. 

Article applied

Article 3 - Meaning of “information held by a public authority”

For the purposes of this Law, information is held by a public authority if –

(a)     it is held by the authority, otherwise than on behalf of another person; or

(b)     it is held by another person on behalf of the authority​​​.

Internal Review Request

Your response asserts that either the Minister for Infrastructure (or, of course, by extension the Infrastructure Department) (the “Minister”):

1. Holds no information relevant to my freedom of information request; or

2. That any information held by the Minister is either held on behalf of someone else.

As provided for by Article 3 of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011 (the “Law”).

Our request sought information held by the Minister in respect of any documents concerning:

1. The maintenance history of the Water Main (including risk assessments) for the five-year period immediately prior to the Incident;

2. Investigations undertaken following the failure of the Water Main;

3. The nature and extent of any repair works to the Water Main following the Incident; and

4. Any previous leaks from the Water Main in the five-year period immediately prior to the Incident and any remedial works undertaken to address such leaks.

It is difficult to envisage circumstances in which the Minister holds no information in relation to the above, in circumstances whereby it was reported on 12th May 2025 that:

“The Infrastructure Department had previously described the subsequent schedule of repairs as “highly complex”, with some structures having been left “unsafe and severely cracked”. Work to fill the voids caused by the burst water main was completed last week. In an update on Monday morning the Infrastructure Department confirmed Rouge Bouillon had been reopened. “A huge thank you to the Infrastructure and Environment team for co-ordinating all efforts between Jersey Water, JDC, engineers, surveyors, insurers and contractors,” the update added.” Rouge Bouillon reopened after "complex" repairs completed - Jersey Evening Post​

The incident occurred in December 2024. The road was reopened in May 2025. It is (at the very least) suggested that during this period, the Minister engaged with at least six entities in order to understand what had happened, and what was required to ensure that the public road could safely be returned to regular use. In light of this, one would expect the Minister to have, at the very least (this list being non-exhaustive):

1. Recorded minutes of meetings in respect of the various ongoing matters at the time;

2. Exchanged emails with a number of entities and individuals;

3. Created internal reports or memos;

4. Updated the wider Government of ongoing issues; and

5. Received ongoing updates from the relevant involved entities.

To suggest that the Minister simply holds no information relevant to my request, for the purposes of the Law, seems inconceivable. We should be grateful for confirmation on:

1) What searches have been conducted to enable you to reach the conclusion that there is no information held; and

2) That our freedom of information request will be reconsidered.

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.​