Decision
Mr. F and Coillte
From Office of the Commissioner for Environmental Information (OCEI)
Case number: OCE-164513-J7C6S9, OCE-165140-X2P0S3, OCE-164996-B4P7T4
Published on
From Office of the Commissioner for Environmental Information (OCEI)
Case number: OCE-164513-J7C6S9, OCE-165140-X2P0S3, OCE-164996-B4P7T4
Published on
The Commissioner invoked article 15(1)(5) of the AIE Regulations to deem the three appeals withdrawn.
5 March 2026
1. Article 15(1)(5) of the AIE Regulations states: “The Commissioner may deem an appeal to be withdrawn if the public authority makes the requested information available, in whole or in part, prior to a formal decision of the Commissioner under article 12(5). In such circumstances, the Commissioner may waive or refund all or part of the appeal fee .”
2. This Office has recently issued a number of decisions where the appellant’s sole point of appeal was the fact that the internal review decision was issued late to him by Coillte (see OCE-163046-Q3M5F5 , OCE-163033-D0Y4M7 and OCE-163548-Z2W2H3 ). This Office in each of these cases took the approach that, as the internal review decision has now been issued, Coillte has dealt adequately with its obligations under article 11 of the AIE Regulations. In each of these decisions, this Office affirmed the position of Coillte and did not direct it to undertake any further action.
3. A number of additional appeals have been identified which contain similar or identical circumstances, the crux of the issue being that Coillte accept it was late in issuing its internal review decision to the appellant under the prescribed statutory timeframes, but that the internal review decision has now been issued to the appellant. In these cases, the appellant’s sole point of appeal is the timeliness of the internal reviews. I consider the most timely and pragmatic way to deal with these cases is to issue a composite decision in relation to these cases.
OCE-164513-J7C6S9
4. On 28 July 2025, the appellant made an AIE request of Coillte for information relating to Bioclass site management plans in County Wicklow. On 28 of August 2025 Coillte issued its original decision granting the request and releasing two records which it identified as coming within the scope of the review, subject to some redactions it contended applied under article 8(a)(i) of the AIE Regulations. On 29 of August 2025 the appellant requested an internal review decision on the basis of his view that Coillte had failed to identify all of the information coming within the scope of the review and, his contention that redactions applied under 8(a)(i) were not justified.
5. On 10 October 2025 the appellant submitted an appeal to this Office, on the basis of a deemed refusal by Coillte, who had not provided an internal review decision within the statutory timelines. On 10 November 2025 Coillte issued an internal review decision which varied the original decision, granting seventeen further records and providing two records which were issued as part of the original decision in unredacted form. As the internal review decision had issued, this Office closed the appeal, in line with what is the well-established practice of this Office.
6. On 11 November 2025 the appellant appealed to this Office, on the basis of the timeliness of the issued internal decision, contending that “By failing to issue a decision the public authority has failed to comply with its statutory responsibility under Article 11(2) and 11(3) of the Regulations and in so doing has compromised my timely access to environmental information. Irrespective of any other consideration I have been denied timely access to environmental information which cannot be remedied by a late decision ”
7. Coillte issued the appellant with an internal review on 10 November 2025. The internal review granted release of information (subject to some redactions) in relation to this appeal. The appellant’s only appeal point is the lateness of the internal review.
8. Coillte has made the requested information available, in whole or in part (as per article 15(1)(5)). In these circumstances, I am deeming this appeal to be withdrawn.
OCE-165140-X2P0S3
9. On 30 July 2025 the appellant made a request for information to Coillte in relation to communications by BAU staff with the Ecology Services Lead in relation to Rare, Threatened or Endangered species.
10. On 30 September 2025 Coillte issued its original decision which cited that, subject to the payment of a charge, a number of records falling within the scope of the request would be released to the appellant.
11. On 2 October 2025 the appellant requested an internal review decision.
12. On 1 December 2025 the appellant appealed to this Office on the grounds of the deemed refusal by Coillte, who had not issued an internal review decision.
13. On 16 December 2025 Coillte issued its internal review decision to the appellant, varying the original decision by un-redacting staff names it had applied article 8(a)(i) to in the original decision.
14. On 16 December 2025 the appellant appealed further to this Office on the basis of the timeliness of the issued internal review decision. The appellant’s only appeal point is the lateness of the internal review.
15. Coillte has made the requested information available, in whole or in part (as per article 15(1)(5)). In these circumstances, I am deeming this appeal to be withdrawn.
OCE-164996-B4P7T4
16. On 5 August 2025 the appellant made an AIE request to Coillte in relation to a siltation and sediment risk assessment report concerning a specific forestry licence. Coillte invoked an extension to the original decision pursuant to article 7(b), issuing the decision on 3 October 2025 which granted the record requested, redacting some of the information under article 3(1) and 8(a)(i).
17. On 3 October 2025 the appellant requested an internal review decision. On 26 November 2025 he appealed to this Office on the basis of the deemed refusal by Coillte, which had failed to respond to issue an internal review decision.
18. On 11 December 2025 Coillte issued its internal review decision, affirming the original decision.
19. On 12 December 2025 the appellant made an appeal to this Office, the basis of which was the timeliness of the internal review decision issuing. Again, the appellant’s only appeal point is the lateness of the internal review.
20. Coillte has made the requested information available, in whole or in part (as per article 15(1)(5)). In these circumstances, I deem this appeal to be withdrawn.
21. The purpose of the AIE Regulations and regime is to enable members of the public to know and understand what is happening in the environment around them through timely and easy access to environmental information. This assists the public to participate in environmental decision-making in an informed manner.
22. Delays at any stage of the AIE request process, or inappropriate refusal to release information, are unacceptable and can jeopardise the ability of requesters to participate in environmental decision making. That said, it has to be acknowledged that there has been an exponential increase in the number and scope of AIE requests to public authorities in recent years which has impacted on their ability to respond to requesters on time.
23. While I have, in the past, called on the heads of public authorities to ensure that they have sufficient staff with the necessary training and support to meet their statutory obligations under AIE, I have, in addition, pointed out that improving the AIE regime also requires the cooperation of requesters.
24. We are committed to playing our role in enabling timely and appropriate access to information on the environment. In doing so I must recognise that the resources of public authorities are not unlimited. Neither are the resources of this Office. Therefore I believe the best way to achieve appropriate access to environmental information is to focus the resources available to requesters, public bodies and this office on ensuring the release of information which should be released rather than expending resources on cases where the information has already been released, albeit regrettably not within the timelines, and to quote the appellant, the matter “cannot be remediated ”.
25. In each of these cases, Coillte has now issued the appellant with an internal review. The internal review decision in each of these case either granted in full or in part the release of information in relation to these appeals. The appellant’s sole appeal point in each of these cases is that the lateness of the internal review. Having carried out a review under article 12(5) of the AIE Regulations, I deem these appeals to be withdrawn as per article 15(5) of the AIE Regulations.
26. Finally, I note Coillte’s explanation of the reason it failed to meet its statutory timelines in these cases was that the requests were sent to an incorrect mailbox. Coillte has now confirmed the correct mailbox through which the appellant should submit his AIE requests, so I trust this issue will not arise again and all statutory timelines will be met going forward.
27. A party to the appeal or any other person affected by this decision may appeal to the High Court on a point of law from the decision. Such an appeal must be initiated not later than two months after notice of the decision was given to the person bringing the appeal.
______________________
Ger Deering
Commissioner for Environmental Information