Jersey Water's duties under the Road Works Law

​​​​​​​​​​Request ​793792694

All Information held by the Department, which the Department considers demonstrates that it has been, and is, monitoring Jersey Water’s duties under the Road Works Law, specifically its duty to use its best endeavours to ensure that its pipes are kept in efficient working condition. This is in connection with the Article 40 of the Road Works and Events (Jersey) Law 2016 (the Road Works Law) which imposes an obligation on Jersey Water or any contractor engaged by them and makes it a criminal offence if they do not comply with this duty. 

Article 24 of the Road Works Law requires Jersey Water (or any contractor engaged by Jersey Water), upon carrying out of emergency works, to notify the relevant highway authority. A failure to do so would amount to a criminal offence. As the Sink Hole that appeared on Rouge Bouillon on 18 December 2024 is a public road, this notification needed to be provided to the Department. A copy of the notice or notices issued by Jersey Water (or any contractor engaged by Jersey Water) under the Road Works Law for Rouge Bouillion during the data range specified below is requested. 

Article 30(4) of the Road Works Law permits the Department to serve a written notice on Jersey Water. It is noted that that notice may have required Jersey Water to make good the damage caused to the road. A copy of this notice is requested along with copies of any information that was received by the Department which enabled it to be satisfied that the damage to Rouge Bouillion following the discovery of the Sinkhole that appeared on 18 December 2024 (and by extension the water pipe) had been made good. 

Information held to show the Department has complied with its duty under Article 9 of the Road Works Law following the discovery of the Sinkhole on Rouge Bouillion on 18th December 2024. 

Information held to show the Department exercised its right under Article 37 of the Road Works Law. 

Further Information held relating to the Sinkhole, its cause, and the works that had to be conducted both to the road and to the neighbouring properties as a result of the Sinkhole. 

Date range 18 December 2024 – 11 July 2025.

Response

It has been estimated that to provide the information requested it 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. Article 16 (1) of the Freedom

of Information (Jersey) Law 2011 has therefore been applied, and this (part of your) request will not be processed further.

Article 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.

Internal Review Request

IR wording sent from the requester about their complaint.

We write to request an internal review of the decision to refuse our Request for Information under Article 16(1) of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011 (the “Freedom of Information Law”) on the basis that the cost of compliance would exceed the prescribed limit.

The refusal notice (the “Notice”) states only that: “it has been estimated that to provide the information requested […] would exceed 12.5 hours allowed for Freedom of Information responses in accordance with Regulation 2(1) of the Freedom of Information (Costs) (Jersey) Regulations 2014”, and that as such the Request will not be processed further.

We respectfully submit that the refusal is inadequately reasoned and should be reconsidered.

Grounds for Review

Insufficient explanation of the cost estimate

The Notice provides no meaningful breakdown of how the estimate was reached.

1 (which was issued by the JOIC to: “help SPAs to fully understand their obligations, and to promote good practice”) states that if a scheduled public authority relies on Article 16 of the Freedom of Information Law: “the estimate must be reasonable in the circumstances of the case and explained in a schedule included within the Refusal Notice”. The Notice does not include a schedule setting out the estimate. The Jersey Office of the Information Commissioner (the “JOIC”) Guidance Note titled“ Requests where the cost of compliance with a request exceeds the cost limit” (the “Guidance Note”)

This demonstrates that for Article 16(1) of the Freedom of Information Law to be relied upon a reasonable estimate of the cost of determining whether information is held, locating it, retrieving it, and extracting it must be provided to us. The Guidance Note further states that the estimate should be sensible, realistic and supported by cogent evidence, and that the reasoning should be explained to the applicant.

https://jerseyoic.org/media/guidance-downloads/foi-guidance/foi-cost-of-complying.pdf ​(last 1 Available at accessed 27th March 2026)

In this case, the Notice does not identify:

• which parts of the Request for Information are said to generate the excessive burden;
• what repositories, departments, email accounts, files, or databases would need to be searched;
• how much time is said to be required for each permitted activity;
• whether any sampling or preliminary scoping exercise was carried out; or
• whether all parts of the Request for Information were treated separately or together.

Without that information, we are unable to understand whether the estimate was reasonable, whether it included only permitted activities, or whether a narrower formulation could readily have been offered.

Apparent failure to provide advice and assistance

Where Article 16 of the Freedom of Information Law is relied upon, a scheduled public authority should, where reasonable, provide advice and assistance to help the applicant refine the request so that it falls within the cost limit.

The Guidance Note expressly states that, where no information can be provided within the cost limit, the authority should indicate that position, and where some information can be provided within the limit, it should explain what information could be supplied if the request were narrowed.

The Notice does not offer any such assistance. It does not suggest any narrowed date range, any priority categories of information, any specific documents that could be considered first, or any way in which the request could be reformulated to bring it within the statutory limit.

Further, Article 16(2) of the Freedom of Information Law permits a scheduled public authority to supply the requested information on payment of a fee determined by that authority. The Notice does not state whether that option has been considered or what fee would be payable.

If a reasonable fee were identified, our client may be prepared to pay it. We therefore request a fee estimate for consideration.

Given that the Request for Information concerns identifiable events, a defined date range, and several potentially discrete categories of records, it we consider that some meaningful advice and assistance could have, and should have been provided, by the SPA.

The authority should consider whether the request can be answered in part or by category

The Request for Information covers several distinct categories, including:

• ​records said to demonstrate monitoring of Jersey Water’s duties under the RoadWorks and

Events (Jersey) Law 2016 (the “Road Works Law”);

• notices issued in relation to emergency works at Rouge Bouillon;
  
• any notice under Article 30(4) of the Road Works Law;
• information showing how the Department was satisfied that damage had been made good;
• information concerning compliance with Article 9 of the Road Works Law in relation to the pipe at Rouge Bouillon where the sinkhole emerged;
• information concerning any exercise of rights under Article 37 in relation to the pipe at Rouge Boullion where the sinkhole emerged; and
• further information relating to the sinkhole, its cause, and consequential works.

These categories are not all the same in nature or likely burden placed upon the authority. Some may involve a small number of obvious documents, such as formal notices, while others may be broader. The authority should therefore review whether it was appropriate to refuse the Request for Information in its entirety, rather than identifying categories that could be answered within the cost limit.

Any estimate must exclude non-permitted activities

As the Guidance Note explains, the estimate may only include the cost of determining whether information is held, locating it, retrieving it, and extracting it. Time spent considering exemptions, reviewing documents for sensitivity, or making redactions should not be included in the estimate.

As the Notice provides no breakdown, it is unclear whether only permitted activities were taken into account. This should be confirmed as part of the internal review.

The Request for Information concerns matters of clear public importance

The Request for Information relates to the authority’s monitoring and enforcement functions in connection with a sinkhole on a public road. These are statutory duties under the Road Works Law. We seek notices concerning emergency works, and information relating to public safety, infrastructure, and regulatory oversight. While public importance does not disapply Article 16 of the Freedom of Information Law, it reinforces the need for careful assistance to enable disclosure of as much information as can reasonably be provided within the statutory framework.

Requested Outcome

We respectfully request that the internal review:

1.Reconsiders whether Article 16 of the Freedom of Information Law was properly engaged on the facts of this Request for Information.

2.Provides a fuller explanation of the estimate relied upon, including the categories of records considered, the searches said to be required, the time attributed to each permitted activity, and whether any sampling or scoping exercise was undertaken.

3.Confirms that the estimate did not include time spent on considering exemptions, consultations, redactions, or other non-permitted activities.

4.Identifies what information could be provided within the cost limit if the Request for Information were refined.

5.Confirms whether the authority is willing to provide the requested information pursuant to Article 16(2) of the Freedom of Information Law on payment of a fee, and if so specifies the fee that would be payable and how it has been calculated.

6.Offers reasonable advice and assistance to narrow the Request for Information, including by prioritising specific document classes, custodians, date ranges, or subject-matter categories.

7.Releases any parts of the Request for Information that can be answered within the applicable cost limit, including any obvious formal notices or other discrete records.

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 noted and agreed by the Panel that:

it was reasonable to have aggregated together all the FOI requests – requests only needing to “relate to any extent to the same or similar information” i.e. to have a very loose connection or common theme in order for these to be aggregated together and in this case the nature of the information requests received were very clearly interconnected to the Jersey Water and the Road Works and Events (Jersey) Law 2016.

Initial searches were conducted and it was estimated that the time taken to review the searches conducted to locate the information requested in this FOI, based upon an average of 1 minute to review each page of email correspondence, would have taken well in excess of 12.5 hours work.

It can be confirmed that this standard period to review documents did not include any time spent on considering exemptions, consultations, redactions, other non-permitted activities – or indeed all aspects of time which might be accounted for within the scope of the FOI costs regulations.

It was further noted that the SPA was not obliged to search for, or compile some of the requested information before refusing a request and in accordance with good practice the SPA should generally avoid providing some information if found as a result of its searching and claiming Article 16 for the remainder of the information.

Accordingly, that Article 16 was properly engaged on the facts of the Requests for Information made to the SPA.

However, that the detail referenced above could have been provided and arguably, some more could have been done to offer advice and assistance to the applicant

In light of the request from the applicant to release any parts of the Request for Information that can be answered within the applicable cost limit, including any obvious formal notices or other discrete records – notwithstanding the same runs against good practice, the SPA has sought to breakdown the somewhat difficultly drafted original FOI request and, having completed the same makes the following statements.

1 Had the scope of the FOI been refined / amended so as to delete questions 4 and 7 (on page 1 above) and to only ask questions 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 (or some combination of these) then Article 3 would apply to this question because the information is not held - albeit nothing in the response to this question, validates the assumptions made in question 1.

2

A copy of the emergency work permit (emergency work notice) issued to Jersey Water under the Road Works Law for Rouge Bouillion during the specified date range is attached. 

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

3

The SPA did not issue a notice to Jersey Water in relation to Article 30(4) of the Road Works and Events (Jersey) Law 2016 (the ‘Road Works Law’), therefore the information is not held, and Article 3 of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011 applies.

4 Initial searches conducted meant that it was estimated that to locate and review correspondence to find the requested information would take significantly longer than 12.5 hours.

However, following the internal review request, notwithstanding there is no obligation on it to do so, on this occasion the SPA decided to conduct the more detailed searches required in order to provide a more detailed response and the information received by the SPA confirming the work to the damage of Rouge Bouillon was made good, is attached.

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

5

The information requested is partially exempt under Article 23 of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011 as some of the information is accessible on www.gov.je​ within the regular SPA updates regarding the road closures at Rouge Bouillon which are linked below.

Rouge Bouillon Updates

Additional information showing that the SPA has complied with its duty under Article 9 of the Road Works Law following the discovery of the Sinkhole on Rouge Bouillion is attached. It should be noted that although part of this information includes a reference to certain “weekly technical updates” not all the weekly technical update meetings that occurred during the relevant period were recorded nor was the SPA responsible for taking (or therefore holds) minutes of all such meetings.

Personal information has been redacted in accordance with A​rticle 25 (Personal Information) of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011.

6 

The SPA does not hold the information requested in relation to Article 37 of the Road Works Law therefore, Article 3 of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011 applies. Nothing in this response validates the assumptions made in the request it may be that information requested is 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.

7

Initial searches conducted meant that it was estimated that a review of potentially applicable information would take significantly longer than 12.5 hours. After a number of refined search terms were used (including: cause, sinkhole, Clarendon Road, Rouge Bouillon), it still wasn’t considered possible to respond to the request within a 12.5 hour period, given the number of potential pages which would be required review on a 1 page per minute basis.

Under the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011 (“FOI Law”), a (SPA) may refuse to supply information if it estimates that the cost of doing so would exceed the amount prescribed by the relevant Regulations.

In this case it is considered that the time taken to:

(a) determine whether the SPA holds the information;

(b) locate the information, or a document which may contain the information;

(c) retrieve the information, or a document which may contain the information; and

(d) extract information held relating to the Sinkhole, its cause, and the works that had to be conducted;

would exceed the amount / time limit provided for such matters under the Regulations. Accordingly, Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011, Article 16 has been applied.

Articles 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.

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]