`Wax and Wane' sculpture removal costs (FOI)

Request

A

What was the exact safety issue that led to the removal of Wax and Wane at Corbiere?

B

What was the cost quoted to fix the safety issue and re-bed the loose stones?

C

What was the cost of the removal of Wax and Wane?

D

If the cost to remove Wax and Wane was greater, why was Wax and Wane removed and not repaired and re-bedded in place?

E

Will Wax and Wane be returned to its original location?

F

If it is not to be returned to its original location, why?

G

What is the future plan for Wax and Wane if it is not to be returned to its original location?

Response

A

The fittings for the two largest slabs in the sculpture were broken which may have resulted in them falling off the sculpture, therefore, there was a risk of injury to the public. 

B

The Natural Environment team identified that there were safety issues with the structure in December 2022 and it was removed by their Ranger Team as soon as possible.

No quotes were obtained in relation to the repair or restoration of the sculpture prior to its removal as it posed an immediate risk to the public over the festive period.

C

The sculpture was moved by the Ranger Team as part of their business-as-usual functions.

It took two rangers approximately three hours to move the structure.

It should be noted that records are not configured in a way to allow the Government of Jersey staff costs to be reported against individual work streams.

Therefore, this information is not held and Article 10 of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011 applies.

D

Please see responses to questions B and C.

E

It is unlikely that the sculpture will be returned to its original location, however, the Natural Environment team are in discussions with the artist regarding its future location. 

F

The original sculpture had been in place for around 30 years and it is considered to have served its purpose.  The surrounding vegetation would be allowed to return to how it was before the sculpture was put in place.  However, future consideration will be given to art in the countryside. 

G

Please see the response to question E.

Article 35 of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011 has been applied to the release of the requested information since the discussions are still on going.

Article 35 is a qualified exemption; therefore, a public interest test has been applied and is shown at the end of this response.

Articles applied

Article 10 - Obligation of scheduled public authority to confirm or deny holding Information

(1) Subject to paragraph (2), if –

(a) a person makes a request for information to a scheduled public authority; and

(b) the authority does not hold the information, it must inform the applicant accordingly.

(2) If a person makes a request for information to a scheduled public authority and –

(a) the information is absolutely exempt information or qualified exempt information; or

(b) if the authority does not hold the information, the information would be absolutely exempt

information or qualified exempt information if it had held it, the authority may refuse to inform the applicant whether or not it holds the information if it is satisfied that, in all the circumstances of the case, it is in the public interest to do so.

(3) If a scheduled public authority so refuses –

(a) it shall be taken for the purpose of this Law to have refused to supply the information requested on the ground that it is absolutely exempt information; and

(b) it need not inform the applicant of the specific ground upon which it is refusing the request or, if the authority does not hold the information, the specific ground upon which it would have refused the request had it held the information.

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.

Public Interest Test

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

Public interest considerations favouring disclosure 

• Disclosure of the 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. 
• Release of the information at this stage might 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.