SoJP building near Crabbe

I visited Crabbe recently & was astonished at the huge & grotesque SoJP building which is 

still under construction!  

1) Can you provide the original budget cost? 

2) The current costs incurred. To include how much over budget?

3) The predicted final cost to include how long it is over the predicted time schedule! 

4) Is it considered SAFE where it is - AS anyone shooting from 400 yards plus will be shooting past this structure!  

The first three questions are budget related so SoJP have no caveat to defer an answer & the 4th if the decline to answer will only stink that it could be dangerous ??  

1) The original budget cost was £2,529,000.00 

2) The current cost incurred is £2,519,086.89 

3) The predicted final cost is currently subject to negotiation, and as such is currently considered to be commercially sensitive. Article 33 of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) 2011 has been applied and a response is declined.  

On receipt of the budget, the project was predicted to be completed in August 2025. This was delayed slightly, due to UK supply matters beyond control, however the range is now fully operational.  

4) The range has received a ‘Safety Assurance Certificate’ by an approved Range Safety Advisor and will be operated in full compliance with all other Crabbe Range protocols, Range Orders and Risk Assessment.    

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) 

Article 33 is a qualified exemption and as such, a public interest test has been conducted as required by law.  

When responding to requests of this nature, the Scheduled Public Authority (SPA) must balance the public interest against the potential impact that disclosure may have on the organisation and/or third parties. 

It has been concluded that, while there is a clear public interest in transparency regarding the use of public funds, the SPA must also consider the potential prejudice to the commercial interests of the Government and any third-party contractors involved.  

There is significant public interest in understanding how public money is being spent.  Disclosure may enhance public accountability and trust in government decision-making. The information could contribute to informed public debate and scrutiny of project management and governance. 

​

However, the SPA also recognises that disclosure of the predicted final cost could:  

• Undermine ongoing or future negotiations with contractors or suppliers. 

• Harm the Government’s ability to secure value for money in future procurement 

exercises. 

After weighing these factors, the SPA has determined that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosure at this time. The potential for commercial prejudice and financial harm to the Government and its partners is considered substantial and likely. Therefore, Article 33 is upheld.