Proposed Tree law

​​Request ​795650639

During Deputy Jonathan Renoufs tenure as Environment Minister, he pushed forward with a proposed 'Tree law' that would of required anyone looking to maintain any trees or bushes with a trunk wider then 8cm would require planning permission. It was public knowledge that in order to implement this failed proposal, an aerial based survey or geo survey of all trees was undertaken. I would like to know how much money was spent on undertaking this survey together with any costs to consultants on or off island in order to facilitate this proposal. 

I would also like to understand what, if any advice he took from professional bodies or consultants, together with any costs, in order to try and implement his proposal

Response

It is intended to publish the P59 consultancy reports on www.gov.je within 12 weeks of the receipt of this request, therefore, the information requested is exempt under Article 36 (Future Publication) of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011.

Article 36 is a qualified exemption; therefore, a public interest test has been applied and is shown at the end of this response.

It has been estimated that to provide details of any advice given to Deputy Jonathan Renouf relating to his proposal, would exceed the 12.5 hours allowed for Freedom of Information responses in accordance with Regulation 2 (1) of the Freedom of Information (Costs) (Jersey) Regulations 2014, therefore, Article 16 of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011 applies.

Further information is publicly available within the Tree Protection Consultation 2023 on www.gov.je using the link below, therefore Article 23 of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011 has been applied:

Tree Protection Consultation 2023 Summary of Findings​

Articles applied

Article 16 - A scheduled public authority may refuse to supply information if cost excessive

(1) A scheduled public authority that has been requested to supply information may refuse to supply the information if it estimates that the cost of doing so would exceed an amount determined in the manner prescribed by Regulations.

(2) Despite paragraph (1), a scheduled public authority may still supply the information requested on payment to it of a fee determined by the authority in the manner prescribed by Regulations for the purposes of this Article.

(3) Regulations may provide that, in such circumstances as the Regulations prescribe, if two or more requests for information are made to a scheduled public authority –

(a) by one person; or

(b) by different persons who appear to the scheduled public authority to be acting in concert or in pursuance of a campaign, the estimated cost of complying with any of the requests is to be taken to be the estimated total cost of complying with all of them.

Article 23 - Information accessible to applicant by other means

(1) Information is absolutely exempt information if it is reasonably available to the applicant, otherwise than under this Law, whether or not free of charge.

(2) A scheduled public authority that refuses an application for information on this ground must make reasonable efforts to inform the applicant where the applicant may obtain the information.

Article 36 - Information intended for future publication

(1) Information is qualified exempt information if, at the time when the request for the

information is made, the information is being held by a public authority with a view to

its being published within 12 weeks of the date of the request.

(2) A scheduled public authority that refuses an application for information on this ground

must make reasonable efforts to inform the applicant –

(a) of the date when the information will be published;

(b) of the manner in which it will be published; and

(c) by whom it will be published.

Public Interest Test

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

Public interest considerations favouring disclosure

• Disclosure of the consultation information would support transparency and promote accountability to the general public, providing confirmation that the necessary discussions have taken place.

• Disclosure of the information would support transparency and promote accountability to the general public and promote trust in the Scheduled Public Authority (SPA) by showing openness

Public interest considerations favouring withholding the information

• In order to review the consultation results the Ministers officials need a safe space in which free and frank discussion can take place regarding the information received and how the consultancy results will be presented.

• Release of the information at this stage might generate misinformed debate in. This would affect the ability of officials to consider and develop the consultancy report from external pressures, and to advise Ministers appropriately.

• Premature disclosure of this information may limit the willingness of parties to provide their honest views and feedback. This would hamper and harm the consultancy report process.

Considering all considerations above, while transparency is important, the public interest in disclosure must be weighed against potential harm caused by distress or misinformation 

The SPA has concluded that, on balance, the risk of causing concerns or spreading misinformation, the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the benefits disclosing the information.​