Decision
Mr. N & Coillte
From Office of the Commissioner for Environmental Information (OCEI)
Case number: OCE-156945-V7K1C7
Published on
From Office of the Commissioner for Environmental Information (OCEI)
Case number: OCE-156945-V7K1C7
Published on
Whether Coillte was justified in refusing information under article 7(5) of the AIE Regulations
1 September 2025
1. On 5 March 2024, the appellant requested the following information from Coillte:
“All information related to access and design of a Forest Road crossing non-Coillte lands at Lissatinnig, Co. Kerry (CN93132). To include details of Rights of Way, agreements for access / construction; ecological surveys of the lands traversed .
Please interpret this request broadly and provide a Schedule of Records with your decision. ”
2. On 4 April 2024, Coillte issued its decision, wherein it part granted the appellant’s request for information under article 7(3)(a)(ii) of the AIE Regulations by directing the appellant to records located on the Forestry Licence Viewer (FLV) website (as maintained by the Department of Agriculture, Food & the Marine) while refusing other information under article 7(5) as it had been “unable to locate any records relevant to ” the request.
3. The following information was set out in the original decision:
“In considering your request, I have determined that it can be dealt with in two distinct parts, as follows: - (a) Information relating to design of a forest road and ecological surveys. (b) Information relating to Rights of Way, agreements for access/construction. I have decided to grant partial access to the requested information. Please find details of my decision set out below .
(a) Design of a forest road and ecological surveys
Pursuant to Article 7(3)(a)(ii) of the AIE Regulations, I am granting access to the requested information in an alternative manner. Article 7(3)(a)(ii) stipulates that “where a request has been made to a public authority for access to environmental information in a particular form or manner, access shall be given in that form or manner unless – access in another form or manner would be reasonable ”, as is the case in this instance. Access to records relating to this part of the Request is being provided through DAFM’s Forestry Licence Viewer. 26 documents relating to the proposed Forest Road at Lissatinnig, Co. Kerry are published and available via the FLV at the link below with each document available to view and download as required.
Of the 26 documents published on the FLV, the following are within the scope of your request: -
1. Harvesting road map
2. Road specifications
3. Biodiversity map
4. Map with gradients of forest road entrance and public road
5. Drainage details
6. Engineers report
7. Plan of forest entrance (scale 1:2500)
8. Detailed plan of forest entrance (scale 1:500)
9. Condition of public roads (to include photos)
10. Other (relaxation of standards engineers’ report)
11. Inet Pre-Approval Submission Report
12. County Council Referral – new road entrance
13. Site details report
14. Inspector’s Certification Report
15. Assessment for EIA Requirement
16. Appropriate Assessment Screening Report
17. Approval
18. Other (Appendix A to Appropriate Assessment Screening Report)
19. Other (correspondence from Inland Fisheries Ireland)
20. Suspension letter
(b) Details of Rights of Way and agreements for access / construction
In relation to information relating to Rights of Way and/or agreements for access / construction, access to this information is refused in accordance with Article 7(5) of the Regulations which stipulates that “where a request is made to a public authority and the information requested is not held by or for the authority concerned, that authority shall inform the applicant as soon as possible that the information is not held by or for it”.
I have examined material held by Coillte and having taken all reasonable steps to locate the requested information and establish whether the information you have requested exists, I have been unable to locate any records relevant to your request. Therefore, it is my decision to refuse this part of the Request under Article 7(5) of the AIE Regulations. We are aware from the decisions of the Commissioner in Mr G and Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine and Mr X and Environmental Protection Agency that we are required to justify how we came to the conclusion that the records do not exist. I am satisfied that I took adequate steps to try to identify and locate relevant environmental information. The type of records which may contain information relevant to this part of the Request would involve a Deed of Grant of Right of Way or a Licence Agreement for Access. In this instance, in order to determine if records relevant to the request exist, detailed discussions were held with the subject matter expert (SME) who is responsible for Estates Management of this geographical region to ascertain, (a) if this information exists and/or is held by Coillte, and (b) to request they carry out appropriate keyword and file searches in the event that such information is held by Coillte. In this regard, I held a meeting with the Estates Manager for BAU 6 on 4 April. The Estates Manager is fully familiar with the proposed Forest Road at Lissatinnig and has confirmed Coillte reached a verbal agreement with a neighbouring landowner for the granting of a Right of Way to Coillte to access the forest. The Estates Manager confirmed that a formal Grant of Right of Way has not yet been entered into between the landowner and Coillte. On the basis of the verbal agreement with the landowner, the matter has progressed to a conveyancing transaction which is currently being dealt with by the respective law firms of the parties, for the purpose of putting in place a Deed of Grant of Right of Way. In addition, the Forest Road has not been constructed as the consent granted by DAFM has been appealed to the Forestry Appeals Committee. On that basis, no information relating to construction exists. On the basis of the information presented by the Estates Manager, it was not deemed necessary to carry out any keyword searches of our systems. Following these discussions with the relevant Subject Matter Expert, I am satisfied that reasonable and adequate steps were taken to search for information within the scope of this part of the Request and on the basis of those discussions, I am satisfied to confirm that information in relation to this part of the request does not currently exist in Coillte.”
4. Also on 4 April 2024, the appellant sought an internal review of Coillte’s decision. The appellant questioned the lack of relevant information located on the FLV. He also queried why no information or basis for refusal was provided for the absence of information on ecological surveys which formed part of his request.
5. Specifically he said: “There is no information on the FLV as to why that particular route was selected to access the forest. I am not satisfied that all reasonable steps to identify information relating to this element of my request has been taken. The application that was submitted to DAFM did not materialise out of thin air .” He stated that the original decision indicates that “records do exist (unless all of the conveyancing will be done verbally), but no basis for refusal has been stated. No information has been provided on ecological surveys and no basis for refusal has been given ."
6. On 3 May 2024, Coillte issued its internal review decision. Coillte once again set out its reliance on article 7(3)(a)(ii) of the AIE Regulations for some of the information requested while also varying its decision to refuse the appellant’s request for certain information under article 9(2)(d) of the AIE Regulations.
7. On 28 November 2024, the Commissioner issued a decision remitting the decision of Coillte for a fresh internal review process. The Commissioner considered it appropriate to provide Coillte with the opportunity to re-examine the appeal (along with 4 other appeals listed in the decision) under circumstances where it wished to correct an error in its original decision making. It was hoped that a more-timely conclusion would be achieved, for all parties concerned, than were a full investigation to take place into this appeal by this Office at that point.
8. On 25 February 2025, Coillte issued its new internal review to the appellant stating that it was affirming the original decision. The internal review set out the request in two parts:
“(a) Information relating to design of a forest road and ecological surveys.
(b) Information relating to Rights of Way, agreements for access/construction.
I am satisfied that the Initial Decision maker was correct in dealing with the request in two parts
Part a. Design of a forest road and ecological surveys
I affirm the Decision to grant access to records in relation to part (a) of the Request, albeit in an alternative format to that requested. Pursuant to Article 7(3)(a)(ii) of the AIE Regulations, you were granted access to the requested information in an alternative manner vis a vis the Department of Agriculture Food and the Marine (DAFM), Forestry Licence Viewer (FLV). Article 7(3)(a)(ii) stipulates that: “where a request has been made to a public authority for access to environmental information in a particular form or manner, access shall be given in that form or manner unless – access in another form or manner would be reasonable ," as is the case in this instance.
I would also like to make reference to Article 7(3)(a) which stipulates that “where a request has been made to a public authority for access to environmental information in a particular form or manner, access shall be given in that form or manner unless – (i) the information is already available to the public in another form or manner that is easily accessible ,” as is the case in this instance.
Following an interview with the Resource Manager, who works in central resource, it was confirmed that all information relevant to the road licence ref: CN93132 is published on the Department of Agriculture Food and the Marine (DAFM), Forestry Licence Viewer (FLV). I am satisfied that a total of 26 documents relating to the proposed Forest Road at Lissatinnig, Co. Kerry were published and available via the FLV, as at the date of your Request, with each document available to view and download as required. I therefore also direct you to the FLV, where all information relevant to the road licence remains published. You can access the DAFM FLV at the following link:
As stated by the Initial Decision maker, of the 26 documents published on the FLV, the following are within the scope of your Request: -
1. Harvesting road map
2. Road specifications
3. Biodiversity map
4. Map with gradients of forest road entrance and public road
5. Drainage details
6. Engineers report
7. Plan of forest entrance (scale 1:2500)
8. Detailed plan of forest entrance (scale 1:500)
9. Condition of public roads (to include photos)
10. Other (relaxation of standards engineers’ report)
11. Inet Pre-Approval Submission Report
12. County Council Referral – new road entrance
13. Site details report
14. Inspector’s Certification Report
15. Assessment for EIA Requirement
16. Appropriate Assessment Screening Report
17. Approval
18. Other (Appendix A to Appropriate Assessment Screening Report)
19. Other (correspondence from Inland Fisheries Ireland)
20. Suspension letter
I have noted that Part (a) of the Request is quite general and doesn’t envisage any specific format in seeking “All information related to access and design of a Forest Road crossing non-Coillte lands at Lissatinnig, Co. Kerry ."
If something other than the information published on the FLV is required, I invite you to submit a new request clearly outlining the category(ies) of information you are still seeking. Coillte reminds you that specificity in all requests is mutually beneficial by aiding Coillte in adhering to the Request as accurately and efficiently as possible. This requires that a request identifies specific records, whether by name, date or another particular identifier. If specific data is sought which is not reflected on the FLV, Coillte invites you to submit a fresh AIE request denoting specific information types, rather than a general request for “All information”. It is open to you to submit a more specific request for environmental information to avoid adding a "catch-all" or "trawling" elements to a request for environmental information. In this regard, I would like to highlight the Commissioner’s decision in the case Friends of the Irish Environment Limited versus Public Authority: Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine Case Number: CEI/16/0004. It is open to the appellant to submit a more specific request for environmental information if it wishes to do so and to avoid adding "catch-all " or "trawling " elements to what are otherwise appropriately specific requests for environmental information.
Part b. Details of Rights of Way and agreements for access / construction
I affirm the Decision to refuse part (b) of your Request in reliance on Article 7(5) which provides that “where a request is made to a public authority and the information requested is not held by or for the authority concerned, that authority shall inform the applicant as soon as possible that the information is not held by or for it "
I am aware from the decisions of the Commissioner in Mr G and Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine and Mr X and Environmental Protection Agency that I am required to justify how I concluded that the records do not exist. I am satisfied that reasonable steps were taken to try to identify and locate the relevant environmental information.
The Initial Decision maker held a meeting with the subject matter expert responsible for this type of information, being the Estates Manager for BAU 6, who explained why environmental information relevant to your Request did not exist. The Estates Manager was in a position to confirm that no construction had taken place at the road referred to in your Request as a forest road licence had not been granted by the DAFM. Also, the Estates Manager was in a position to confirm that a formal Grant of Right of Way had not yet been entered into between Coillte and the relevant landowner. A right of way did not exist. A verbal agreement may have been in place and the legal work to lead to the formal execution of a Deed of Grant of Right of Way may have commenced, as explained in the Initial Decision, however there is no formalised/registered Right of Way so as to create environmental information that would be relevant to part b) your Request. Accordingly, the Initial Decision maker was correct to conclude that no information existed in relation to part b) of your Request seeking information relating to rights of way and construction as there was no right of way and no construction commenced. In addition, as part of the first internal review process, I requested that the Engineering Process Manager, being a subject matter expert with regard to forest roads, search for any additional information in relation to the proposed forest road at Lissatinnig, Co. Kerry which was not submitted to DAFM and which may be relevant to part a) and b) of your Request. This request was made to the Engineering Process Manager in BAU6 on 24 April 2024 and he duly carried out searches on cloud based storage, Outlook 365 emails, Coillte’s GIS system and Land Resource Management (LRM) database and confirmed that no further information exists, relevant to a forest road at Lissatinnig, Co. Kerry particularly regarding design, ecolological surveys, access, construction, and road licensing, using the following key word searches "CN93132" and “Lissatinnig ” I am satisfied that all information relevant to part a) of your Request was appropriately and adequately identified and that the DAFM FLV can provide you with the requested information which, as noted above, contains all the relevant information within the scope of part a) of your Request. All information collated by Coillte for the purpose of preparing the road application with reference number: CN93132 was submitted to DAFM, and there is no information that was not included as part of the application. The basis on which no information exists, other than the information published on the FLV, is that information in relation to road licences has become considerably more streamlined in recent years, with all data in relation to road licenses being provided to the DAFM who then upload the documentation to the FLV for viewing by the wider public to facilitate participation in the application process”
9. On 26 February 2025, the appellant appealed to this Office stating:
“I remain dissatisfied with Coillte's decision on this remitted case. The decision is little different from the original decision and the majority of the content of my original preliminary submission still applies. Once again Coillte are applying a new reference to an existing case - I do not consider this to be appropriate .”
10. On 10 March 2025 the appellant stated the following in submission to this Office:
“The key point is that the route of the road that was submitted as the Forest Road application did not materialise out of thin air which is what Coillte's decision is implying. Someone in Coillte knows why they decided to try and access the project forest from that side as opposed to from the West where there looks to be a potentially more obvious access option - presumably the option that was used when the land was first planted .”
11. In the same submission, the appellant stated that he wanted clarification on Coillte’s reference to a verbal agreement and legal work to lead to the formal execution of a “Deed of Grant of Right of Way ...” The appellant stated that as his request was for “all information related to access and design of a Forest Road …” any correspondence (including in relation to possible agreements and to preparatory legal work) concerning the use of the lands concerned falls within the scope of his request. The appellant’s contention is that Coillte's refusal under Article 7(5) is not valid.
12. Coillte sent a detailed submission to this Office on 21 March 2025.
13. I am directed by the Commissioner to carry out a review under article 12(5) of the Regulations. In carrying out my review, I have had regard to the submissions made by the appellant and Coillte. In addition, I have had regard to:
• the Guidance document provided by the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government on the implementation of the AIE Regulations (the Minister’s Guidance);
• Directive 2003/4/EC (the AIE Directive), upon which the AIE Regulations are based;
• the 1998 United Nations Economic Commission for Europe Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (the Aarhus Convention); and
• The Aarhus Convention—An Implementation Guide (Second edition, June 2014) (‘the Aarhus Guide’).
14. In accordance with article 12(5) of the AIE Regulations, my role is to review the public authority’s internal review decision and to affirm, annul or vary it. Where appropriate in the circumstances of an appeal, I will require the public authority to make available environmental information to the appellant.
15. The appellant has clarified with this Office that he is not disputing the reasonableness of Coillte’s decision to part grant access to the requested information in an alternative form of manner via the Forestry Licence Viewer pursuant to article 7(3)(a)(ii).
16. Accordingly, the scope of this review is to investigate whether Coillte has conducted adequate searches in line with article 7(5) of the AIE Regulations in order to locate all records relevant to the appellant’s request.
17. Coillte has raised a preliminary objection in its submission to this Office. It stated that the appellant has not presented valid grounds of appeal and the manner in which he has framed his email to the OCEI of 26 February 2025 is “potentially prejudicial to Coillte ”. Coillte state that the appellant’s attempt to rely on grounds raised in his previous appeal to this Office regarding the same request for information, should not be permitted in the AIE statutory appeal process.
18. Coillte’s position is that it “would be prejudiced if an appeal were to be based upon submissions and grounds of appeal made by this Appellant retrospectively and before Coillte had issued its new IR Decision and based upon an appeal which has been finalised.”
19. Coillte also makes the point that it is unclear what parts of the internal review are at issue in the appeal, and the appellant has merely stated “the majority of the content of my original preliminary submission still applies .” Coillte’s conclusion is that no valid appeal exists.
20. I have considered Coillte’s preliminary objection to the validity of the appeal. The new internal review issued by Coillte on 25 February 2025 affirmed the original decision of 5 March 2024. To this end I consider the points the appellant made to Coillte in his original request for an internal review to broadly set out the reasons for the appellant’s appeal to this Office – in essence the crux of his appeal is that he is not satisfied that all reasonable steps have been taken to identify information relevant to his request, and that the “conveyancing transaction ” mentioned by Coillte in the original decision means that further records must exist in relation to his request.
21. I do not accept the preliminary objection made by Coillte. From a fair procedures perspective, I am satisfied that all of the material facts in relation to this appeal have been brought to Coillte’s attention and it has had ample opportunity to address them. I am not persuaded by Coillte’s argument that it has been prejudiced by the circumstances of the appellant’s appeal.
22. If I was to take a more restrictive approach and agree with Coillte’s preliminary objection, the appellant would simply need to make a new appeal for the information at issue explicitly setting out the reasons for his appeal. I consider Coillte is already aware of the appellant’s complaint points. This would simply create added work for this Office and therefore it is more efficient and appropriate for me to deal with the substantive issue of whether Coillte has carried out adequate searches in line with article 7(5) of the AIE Regulations.
23. The crux of the appellant’s appeal is his contention that Coillte have not demonstrated that it has carried out adequate searches to determine that no further information in relation to his request is held by it.
24. Article 7(1) of the AIE Regulations requires public authorities to make available environmental information that is held by or for them on request. Article 7(5) of the AIE Regulations is the relevant provision to consider where the question arises as to whether the requested environmental information is held by or for the public authority concerned. In cases where a public authority has effectively refused a request under article 7(5), this Office must be satisfied that adequate steps have been taken to identify and locate relevant environmental information, having regard to the particular circumstances. In determining whether the steps taken are adequate in the circumstances, a standard of reasonableness must necessarily apply. It is not normally this Office’s function to search for environmental information.
25. In order for a public authority to successfully rely on this provision, it must, among other things, outline that it carried out adequate searches for the environmental information requested.
26. What will be considered reasonable will vary from case to case, but as a general guide, I set out below the type of information that my Office would generally expect to be set out in a decision where a public authority is relying on article 7(5) of the regulations;
(i) an outline of exactly which areas/units etc. of the organisation were searched for the information;
(ii) an explanation of how searches were carried out (i.e. manually, by computer, by name, by key words). Keywords should be recorded and provided in the decision as appropriate;
(iii) details of the individuals consulted in connection with the search;
(iv) a description of the searches carried out to cover the possibility of misfiled/misplaced records;
(v) details of guidelines, practices, procedures and arrangements in relation to the storage, filing, archiving, retention and destruction of the type of information requested in this case;
(vi) the basis on which the public authority has concluded that it does not hold any information within the scope of the appellant’s request and that no such information is held by any other person or body on its behalf.
27. Article 7(5) of the AIE regulations allows a public authority to refuse a request if it does not hold the requested information. In order for a public authority to successfully rely on this provision, it must, among other things, provide evidence that it carried out adequate searches for the environmental information requested.
28. This Office’s approach to dealing with this type of case is to assess whether adequate steps have been taken to identify and locate relevant environmental information, having regard to the particular circumstances. In determining whether the steps taken are adequate in the circumstances, a standard of reasonableness is applied. What will be considered reasonable will vary from case to case.
29. Coillte have acknowledged in its original decision and internal review that adequate steps have been taken to identify and locate the relevant environmental information, having regard to the particular circumstances, in order to justify its reliance on Article 7(5). I will consider whether Coillte has carried out adequate searches in respect of both parts of the appellant’s request.
Part A) - “Information relating to design of a forest road and ecological surveys.”
30. This part of the appellant’s request refers to “information relating to design of a forest road and ecological surveys .” Coillte’s position is that all information relevant to the forest road licence application (ref CN93132) is available on the FLV. It stated that all records were either generated by or on behalf of Coillte, or are otherwise held by Coillte e.g. furnished to Coillte by the Department of Agriculture in the course of the forest road licensing application. In its internal review, Coillte identified and listed 20 documents on the FLV (of 26) that it considers in scope of the appellant’s request.
31. As I have already set out, the appellant is not disputing the reasonableness of Coillte’s decision to give access to part A) of his request under article 7(3)(a)(ii) of the AIE Regulations. But, for context, article 7(3)(a) of the AIE Regulations provides that where a request has been made to a public authority for access to environmental information in a particular form or manner, access shall be given in that form or manner unless (i) the information is already available to the public in another form or manner that is easily accessible or (ii) access in another form or manner would be reasonable. Article 7(3)(b) provides that where a public authority decides to make available environmental information other than in the form or manner specified in the request, the reason therefore shall be given by the public authority in writing.
32. Article 7(3) of the AIE Regulations can only be considered where a public authority has identified relevant information held by or for it, determined that information should properly be released (i.e. that no exemption provision in article 8 or 9 of the AIE Regulations (subject to article 10) applies), and has then decided to give access to that information other than in the form or manner requested.
33. Article 7(3)(a) of the AIE Regulations transposes part of Article 3(4) of the AIE Directive, which provides that where an applicant requests a public authority to make environmental information available in a specific form or format (including in the form of copies), the public authority shall make it so available unless (a) it is already publicly available in another form or format which is easily accessible by applicants or (b) it is reasonable for the public authority to make it available in another form or format, in which case reasons shall be given for making it available in that form or format.
34. Article 7(3)(a)(ii) of the AIE Regulations can only be considered where a public authority has carried out searches, identified relevant information held by or for it, determined that information should be released, and has then decided to give access to that information other than in the form or manner requested.
35. It is the aforementioned searches that Coillte were required to carry out that form the basis of the appellant’s appeal. He is not satisfied that all the information relevant to his request is available on the FLV. In particular he is not satisfied that no information relating to how the decision on the location of the forest road was made has been provided. He states that the Forest Road application “did not materialise out of thin air ”, and that someone in Coillte knows why they decided to try and access the project forest from that side as opposed to from the West which is a “potentially more obvious access option - presumably the option that was used when the land was first planted .”
36. In submission to this Office, Coillte detailed the searches it undertook in relation to this part of the appellant’s information request, in order to identify relevant information related to the appellant’s request. It stated that in addition to the 20 records located on the FLV that are relevant to the appellant’s request, additional enquiries were made with Coillte’s Engineering Process Manager as the SME (subject matter expert) with particular knowledge and expertise on Coillte’s forest roads and the forest road licensing process. Coillte set out the searches that were conducted by that SME in relation to the requested information. These searches included - searches on cloud-based storage, his outlook 365 emails, Coillte’s GIS system and Land Resource Management (LRM) database and confirmed that no further information exists, relevant to a forest road at Lissatinnig, Co. Kerry particularly regarding design, ecolological surveys, access, construction, and road licensing, using key word searches "CN93132 " and “Lissatinnig”.
37. Coillte also provided this Office with context as to why it holds no information in relation to this part of the request, other than the information published on the FLV. It stated that information in relation to road licences has become considerably more streamlined in recent years, with all data in relation to road licenses being provided to the Department of Agriculture who then upload the documentation to the FLV for viewing by the wider public to facilitate participation in the application process. Taking into account this explanation provided by Coillte, alongside the search details it has provided – I am satisfied that no additional information related to this part of his request is held by Coillte (other than that which was found to be publicly available on the FLV and which it has granted to the appellant under article 7(3)(a).)
38. I note the appellant has said Coillte should hold information relating to why and how the location of the forest road was chosen. It not my role to comment on the information that Coillte should hold in respect of Forest Roads, rather I must be satisfied that Coillte have carried out adequate searches when refusing a request on the basis that no information is held by it. For the reasons set out above, I am satisfied that this is the case.
Part b - information relating to Rights of Way, agreements for access/construction
39. Part B of the appellant’s request is for: “information relating to Rights of Way, agreements for access/construction ”. In its internal review, Coillte affirmed the Decision to refuse part (b)- on the basis of Article 7(5) which provides that “where a request is made to a public authority and the information requested is not held by or for the authority concerned, that authority shall inform the applicant as soon as possible that the information is not held by or for it ."
40. There appears to be a dispute over the interpretation of this part of the appellant’s request. The appellant states that Coillte have taken a narrow interpretation of his request – and he disagrees with Coillte’s reliance on article 7(5) on the basis that environmental information on “details of rights of way ” does not exist, ie. there is no formal Right of Way agreement in place. The appellant stated that his request should be interpreted broadly to encompass any correspondence (including in relation to possible agreements and to preparatory legal work) concerning the use of the lands. I have carefully considered the wording of the appellant’s request and on this occasion consider Coillte’s interpretation to be reasonable.
41. Coillte has explained that no formal Right of Way agreement is in place, therefore no information relevant to this part of the appellant’s request exists. Coillte explained that the Subject Matter Experts consulted in relation to this are personnel with extensive knowledge, expertise and involvement in the area of forest roads and the forest road licensing process. Coillte added that these SMEs are aware of the legal status regarding Coillte’s access to forest roads as that is an integral part of the overall forestry operational process. To this end, the Estates Manager confirmed that a formal Grant of Right of Way had “not yet been entered into between Coillte and the relevant landowner. A right of way did not exist ”. Coillte stated that while “a verbal agreement may have been in place and the legal work to lead to the formal execution of a Deed of Grant of Right of Way may have commenced…however there is no formalised/registered Right of Way so as to create environmental information that would be relevant ” to part B) of the request. I am persuaded by Coillte’s comments that this expert had intimate knowledge of the subject of the request and accept that no relevant information exists.
42. Despite Coillte’s position that no records exist because no formal Right of Way is in place, it did set out that the AIE officer requested that the Engineering Process Manager, being a subject matter expert with regard to forest roads, search for any additional information in relation to the proposed forest road at Lissatinnig, Co. Kerry which was not submitted to DAFM and which may be relevant to both part A) and B) of the Request. As I have already set out earlier in the decision the Engineering Process Manager in BAU6 carried out searches on cloud based storage, Outlook 365 emails, Coillte’s GIS system and Land Resource Management (LRM) database and confirmed that no further information exists, relevant to a forest road at Lissatinnig, Co. Kerry particularly regarding design, ecolological surveys, access, construction, and road licensing, using the following key word searches "CN93132 " and “Lissatinnig .”
43. Based on the evidence before me, I am persuaded by Coillte’s explanation as to why no records exist in relation to Part B of the appellant’s request. For this reason, alongside the searches details it has provided, I am satisfied that no information is held by or for it in relation to this part of the appellant’s request.
44. Having carried out a review under article 12(5) of the AIE Regulations, I affirm Coillte’s decision. Coillte, in the course of this appeal, has made reference to the existence of information relating to pre-agreement enquiries regarding the proposed registration of a Right of Way in relation to land at Lissatinning, Co. Kerry (CN93132). I have found this information to be out of scope of this appeal, but it is open to the appellant to make a new AIE request to Coillte in relation to the same, if he wishes to do so.
45. Based on the evidence before me, I find Coillte’s explanation as to why no records are held by or for it in relation to this part of the appellant’s request to be persuasive. It is also important to note that we do not generally expect public authorities to carry out extensive or indefinite searches for records simply because an applicant asserts that more records should or might exist or rejects a public authorities’ explanation as to why a record does not exist. What is required to rely on article 7(5) is that the public authority has taken all reasonable steps to locate the record sought.
46. 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.
______________________
Julie O’Leary on behalf of the
Commissioner for Environmental Information