Havre des Pas Improvement Group meeting

​Request 751785519

Further to the FOI response dated 29th August 2025 ('Minutes for Havre des Pas Improvement Group meeting', ref: 736107619) and with reference to Planning Application P/2025/10062 published this week concerning the proposal to build a skate park on land used for reversing bays at South Hill - 

On page 43 (Part 2, section 7.3.2) of the Planning Statement (ref: 201805-PS-001) submitted by the Government of Jersey with its application P/2025/10062, there is the following statement (extract): 

"St Helier Deputies 

All 13 St Helier Deputies were contacted by email on 21st January 2025. Information and drawings current at the time were attached to the emails. A response was received from 8 Deputies. A meeting was held with 1 Deputy." 

Please supply the following: 

1) Copies of all the aforementioned correspondence with the 8 Deputies who responded by email; 

2) If any written account was made of the personal meeting with the one Deputy, please provide it and identify the Deputy if the emails and/or written account don't reveal this. 

Response 

1 and 2 

The requested correspondence, including the meeting overview is attached. It should be noted that the same initial letter was sent to all eight deputies. 

Freedom of Information response 751785519 - Correspondence.pdf

Freedom of Information response 751785519 - Initial Email.pdf

Personal information within the documents has been redacted in accordance with Article 25 (Personal Information) of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011.  

The identity of the deputy in relation to the meeting is also exempt under Article 25. 

Articles applied 

Article 25 - Personal information 

(1) Information is absolutely exempt information if it constitutes personal data of which the applicant is the data subject as defined in the Data Protection (Jersey) Law 2018. 

(2) Information is absolutely exempt information if – 

(a) it constitutes personal data of which the applicant is not the data subject as defined in the Data Protection (Jersey) Law 2018; and 

(b) its supply to a member of the public would contravene any of the data protection principles, as defined in that Law. ​​

Internal Review Request

Dear Sir/Madam,

I request an Internal Review into this response that you sent me yesterday.

Having briefly viewed the documents, you seem to have redacted the names of most of the St Helier Deputies who responded to the original e-mail, although I noticed that the names of a couple of Deputies were not redacted, which makes me suspect that you only redacted their names if they didn't consent to be identified? What you have presented to me is a series of anonymous comments which don't reveal who said what about the Skatepark plans as they were at the start of the year.

The effect of these redactions completely defeats the point of my request, which was to discover what each Deputy said in response to being sent the skatepark plans as they were at the start of the year. The current skatepark planning application is highly controversial but I am not aware of any town Deputy making their views known in an open and public way, hence why I asked to see these e-mails. In responding to the e-mail sent to them, they were acting in their official capacity as St Helier's political representatives, and they don't have the right to avoid public scrutiny that might result in bad PR for them.

St Helier residents, particularly those living close to the proposed development, have a right to know what their elected constituency politicians have said in relation to the skatepark plans, whether the earlier or the latest versions. If this response stands in its current redacted state then it will enable these Deputies to go into next year's elections without being held accountable to the voters.

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.

Freedom of Information response 751785519 - Revised_Correspendence.pdf

Freedom of Information response 751785519 - RevisedInitialEmail.pdf​

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​.