Sinkhole at Rouge Bouillion

​​​​​Request ​793789854

All information in relation to the sinkhole that appeared on Rouge Bouillion on 18th December 2024 (the Sinkhole) to support the States of Jersey Fire and Rescue Service to be quoted by the Jersey Evening Post to say; “The Fire and Rescue Service confirmed that a burst water main underneath the road had created the hole” & “the water main had been repaired. However, there is damage to the road and authorities remain concerned about the affected building”.

https://jerseyeveningpost.com/news/2024/12/18/roads-remain-closed-after-sinkhole-createscracks-in-building/​

Response

The States of Jersey Fire and Rescue Service (SJFRS) as part of Justice and Home affairs

hold the following data:

Export from Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) System notes:​

​​SJFRS Social Media Posts:

Jersey Fire & Rescue | Jersey | Facebook​

SJFRS Website Posts:

Jersey Fire & Rescue Service | News

Jersey Fire & Rescue Service | News​

Incident hand over form on next page

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

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.

(3) In determining for the purposes of this Article whether the lawfulness principle in Article 8(1)(a) of the Data Protection (Jersey) Law 2018 would be contravened by the disclosure of information, paragraph 5(1) of Schedule 2 to that Law (legitimate interests) is to be read as if sub-paragraph (b) (which disapplies the provision where the controller is a public authority) were omitted.

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.

Internal Review Request

Dear Sir/Madam,

We write to request an internal review of the response to Freedom of Information request 793789854, dated March 2026 (copy attached for ease), concerning:

“All information in relation to the sinkhole that appeared on Rouge Bouillion on 18th December 2024 … to support the States of Jersey Fire and Rescue Service to be quoted by the Jersey Evening Post …”

We request an internal review because I am not satisfied that the response fully complied with the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011, particularly as to:

1. whether all information held within the scope of the request was identified and considered; and

2. whether sufficient advice and assistance was provided, including in relation to the reliance on Article 23.

1. Whether all information held within scope was identified

Our request sought all information relating to the sinkhole incident that supported the statements attributed to the States of Jersey Fire and Rescue Service. The response disclosed:

• ​CAD system notes;
• references to the States of Jersey Fire Service social media and website posts; and
• an incident handover form.

However, the request was broader than those categories alone. The Jersey Office of the Information Commissioner guidance explains that information is held for the purposes of the Law if it is held by the authority itself or by another person on its behalf.

In light of that, we ask the reviewing officer to consider whether additional recorded information was held within scope, including:

• internal correspondence;
• communications with the media;
• briefings or situation updates;
• further incident logs, reports, or records; and
• records evidencing the basis for the public statements that the sinkhole was caused by a burst water main, that the water main had been repaired, and that there remained concern about the affected building.

The disclosed material suggests a substantial multi-agency incident involving evacuation, road closures, Jersey Water, JEC, Island Energy and a structural engineer, which indicates that further recorded information is likely to have existed.

If the authority’s position is that no further information was held, we ask that the internal review explains what searches were undertaken, including the systems searched, the date range used, and the departments or officers asked to search.

2. Advice and assistance, and the application of Article 23

The response cites Article 23 – Information accessible to applicant by other means, which provides that information is exempt if it is reasonably available to the applicant otherwise than under the Law, and that where this ground is relied upon the authority must make reasonable efforts to inform the applicant where the information may be obtained.

The Jersey Office of the Information Commissioner Code of Practice also states that Article 12 imposes a duty on SPAs to make reasonable efforts to provide sufficient advice and assistance to applicants, and that SPAs should be flexible and proactive in offering assistance.

The Code says appropriate assistance may include:

• ​providing an outline of the different kinds of held information that might meet the request; and
• providing a general response setting out options for further information that could be provided on request.

We accept that the States of Jersey Fire Service website news items may fall within Article 23 if they contain the relevant material and are reasonably accessible.

However, we do not consider that simply referring to the general Facebook page — “Jersey Fire & Rescue | Jersey | Facebook” — is sufficient if reliance is being placed on specific Facebook content. A link to a general page does not clearly identify the relevant post or posts, and does not adequately inform the applicant where that information may be obtained.

That is particularly so given that the Code confirms that applicants cannot reasonably be expected to possess identifiers or descriptions of particular records unless that information has been made available by the authority.

In those circumstances, we ask the reviewing officer to reconsider whether the response provided sufficient advice and assistance, and whether Article 23 was adequately applied to the Facebook material.

We therefore ask that the review either:

• ​​provides the exact Facebook post URLs or other sufficient identifying details for each relevant post; or
• if that cannot be done, discloses the relevant Facebook content rather than relying on Article 23.

3. Outcome sought

We ask that the internal review:

1. confirms what searches were undertaken for information within scope;

2. confirms whether any additional information is held;

3. reconsiders whether sufficient advice and assistance was provided under Article 12 and the Code of Practice;

4. reconsiders whether Article 23 was adequately applied to the Facebook material; and

5. provides precise links or identifiers for any information said to be reasonably accessible by other means.

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:

Following discussion, it was agreed by the Panel that the decision was upheld​.