Reduction of speed limits in the parish of St Ouen

​​​​Request 792057390

1

Copies of all completed questionnaires and consultation papers relating to the public consultation about the reduction of speed limits in the parish of St Ouen.

2

Copies of any minutes relating to internal meetings of Infrastructure and Environment or meetings with personnel or committees related to the Parish of St Ouen, including the Constable of St Ouen and the Parish Roads Committee.

3

Any evidence held by Infrastructure & Environment supporting the specific safety benefits of imposing lower speed limits across the Parish of St Ouen.

Response

1 

The information requested is partially exempt under Article 23 of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011 as the consultation result report is accessible on www.gov.je on the consultation page linked below.​ 

Freedom of Information 792057390 - St Ouen Speed Limit Consultation Results.pdf​

The completed consultation questionnaires are exempt under Article 35 (Formulation and development of policies) of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011 as this project currently remains policy under development.

Article 35 is a qualified exemption; therefore, a public interest and prejudice tests have been applied and are shown at the end of this response.​

2 

A copy of the minutes from the Parish of St Ouen’s Roads Committee meeting are attached. 

Freedom of Information 792057390 - Roads Committee Minutes.pdf

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

3

The Scheduled Public Authority (SPA) researched online the evidence supporting specific safety benefits of imposing lower speed limits in villages and urban area, therefore, Article 23 of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011 applies.

Links have been provided to information available online about efficacy of reduced speed limits.

DfT 20mph Research Study – Process & Impact Evaluation (2018): https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/757307/20mph-headline-report.pdf

TRL Report 363 – Urban Speed Management Methods: 

https://www.trl.co.uk/uploads/trl/documents/TRL363.pdf​

TfL Long-Term Analysis of 20mph Schemes (2025): 

https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/media/press-releases/2025/may/powerful-new-long-term-tfl-research-shows-20mph-speed-limits-save-lives-on-london-s-roads​

TfL Safe Speeds – Vision Zero Evidence Base: 

https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/safety-and-security/road-safety/safe-speeds​

20’s Plenty – Wide 20mph Limits Are Effective: 

https://www.20splenty.org/wide_20mph_limits_are_effective​

20’s Plenty – TfL VRU Benefits: https://www.20splenty.org/tfl_20mph_data

20’s Plenty – Call for a 20mph Default London Limit: 

https://www.20splenty.org/london_20mph_default​

Benefits of 20mph in UK Villages – Case Study Review: 

https://bensonpc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Benefits-of-a-20-MPH-Speed-Limit-in-UK-Villages.pdf​

Articles applied

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 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.

Article 35 - Formulation and development of policies

Information is qualified exempt information if it relates to the formulation or development of any proposed policy by a public authority.

Prejudice and Public Interest test Article 35

Prejudice test

The requested information relates to ongoing policy development and internal deliberations concerning St Ouen speed consultations. Article 35 is engaged where disclosure would, or would be likely to, prejudice the formulation or development of policy.

Disclosure of this information at this stage would be likely to inhibit the free and frank exchange of views between officials and decision-makers. The material reflects evolving positions, options under consideration, and internal advice that has not yet been finalised. Premature disclosure would undermine the “safe space” required for effective policy formulation, as stakeholders may become less willing to express candid opinions if such views are subject to public scrutiny before decisions are reached.

There is a real and significant risk that disclosure would distort public understanding by presenting incomplete or provisional information, potentially leading to misinformed debate and external pressure that could adversely affect the integrity and effectiveness of the policy development process.

Accordingly, it is considered that disclosure would be likely to prejudice the formulation and development of policy within the meaning of Article 35. Conclusion of Prejudice Test

For the reasons outlined above, it is considered that:

Disclosure would be likely to prejudice the formulation and development of policy (Article 35); therefore, the exemption is engaged.

While there is a public interest in transparency and accountability, particularly in relation to policymaking, this is outweighed in this case, by the strong public interest in maintaining the integrity of the policy development process.

Public Interest test

In applying this article, the following considerations were considered.

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 to the public fulfils an educative role about the early stages in policy development and illustrates how the department engages with parties for this purpose.

Public interest considerations favouring withholding the information

• In order to best develop policy and provide advice to Ministers, officials need a safe space in which free and frank discussion can take place – discussion of how documentation is presented and provided is considered as integral to policy development as iterations of documents are demonstrative of the policy development process.

• The need for this safe space is considered at its greatest during the live stages of a policy.

• The release of the information without comprehensive interpretation alongside other data could impact the general public with misinterpretation and generate misinformed debate. This would affect the ability of officials to consider and develop policy away 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 policy–making process not only in relation to this subject area but in respect of future policy development across wider departmental business.

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

It should also be noted that once a policy is formulated and published, the public interest in withholding information relating to its formulation is diminished, however, the use of the exemption can be supported if it preserves sufficient freedom during the policy formulation phase to explore options without that process being hampered by some expectation of future publication.

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