Decision
X and Limerick City and County Council
From Office of the Commissioner for Environmental Information (OCEI)
Case number: OCE-158138-R0F5M1
Published on
From Office of the Commissioner for Environmental Information (OCEI)
Case number: OCE-158138-R0F5M1
Published on
Whether the Council provided the appellant with all relevant information in accordance with article 7(1) of the AIE Regulations and whether the Council had established that it did not hold any further information in accordance with article 7(5) of the AIE Regulations.
15 January 2026
1. On 2 March 2023, the appellant made a request to the Council under the AIE Regulations seeking a report issued by the CEO of the Council to An Bord Pleanála; information on a hydrogeologist employed by or consulted by the Council; and details of lobbying by a specified company or its agents. The appellant set out specific questions within the request, labelled “Questions 1-7 .”
2. On 6 March 2023, the Council provided a copy of the CEO’s report to An Bord Pleanála to the appellant. In its decision of 23 March 2023, the Council informed the appellant that information on the hydrogeologist was available in the report provided. In respect of the queries on lobbying, it referred the appellant to the Register of Lobbying maintained by the Standards in Public Office Commission.
3. On 19 April 2023, the appellant sought an internal review of this decision. On 10 May 2023, the Council issued an internal review in which it provided copies of an email from the relevant company sent to all 40 members of the council, and one sent to 6 specified members. The appellant appealed to this Office on 16 June 2023. It stated that its reason for appeal was that it was unhappy with the failure of the Council to provide information in relation to points 5, 6 and 7 of its request of 2 March 2023. These were the requests relating to lobbying.
4. The Commissioner considered the issue of whether the Council was justified in refusing the appellant’s request and whether the Council had taken adequate steps in an effort to identify all relevant information and in providing partial information only in the case of one of the records provided. On 14 March 2024, the Commissioner annulled the internal review decision of the Council and directed that a new internal review process be carried out under article 11 of the AIE Regulations.
5. On 18 June 2024, the Council issued its new internal review decision to the appellant. The internal review set out the following:
“I am granting your request and set out below responses to your questions:
Q5. Dr Pat Daly, Management Team and staff of the Planning Department have all confirmed that they were not lobbied by any of the above
Q6. The planning files contain no record of lobbying from Councillors or other Politicians in relation to the punches Cross Development.
Q7. Emails sent from Cloncaragh Investments to Councillors in 2019 are attached are listed on the schedule of records which is also attached. All 40 Councillors have been contacted and have confirmed that these emails are the only communication they hold in this regard.”
6. The appellant brought its second appeal to this Office on 19 June 2024.
7. On 6 December 2024, the Commissioner annulled the internal review decision of the Council and directed that a new internal review process be carried out.
8. On 24 March 2025, the Council issued its new internal review decision to the appellant. The internal review decision set out the following:
“I refer to the request, and subsequent appeal, made by X under the European Communities (Access to Information on the Environment) Regulations 2007 to 2018 (hereafter referred to as the AIE Regulations) for access to information held by Limerick City and County Council .
I have conducted a fresh internal review and am now enclosing records 87-103 which have been created to meet your request under Questions 5, 6 and 7. These records are in addition to those you have received previously and include specific responses from members of staff and elected members of Limerick City and County Council .”
9. The appellant brought its third appeal to this Office on 10 April 2025.
10. I am directed by the Commissioner to undertake 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 the Limerick City and County Council. In addition, I have had regard to:
a. 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);
b. Directive 2003/4/EC (the AIE Directive), upon which the AIE Regulations are based;
c. 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
d. The Aarhus Convention—An Implementation Guide (Second edition, June 2014) (‘the Aarhus Guide’).
11. What follows does not comment or make findings on each and every argument advanced but all relevant points have been considered.
12. In accordance with article 12(5) of the AIE Regulations, the role of the Commissioner is to review a 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.
13. The scope of this appeal concerns whether the Council was justified in refusing access to environmental information on the grounds that no further information was held by or for the authority concerned in the meaning of article 7(5) of the Regulations.
14. Article 11(2) of the AIE Regulations provides that following receipt of a request for an internal review, the public authority concerned shall designate a person unconnected with the original decision whose rank is the same as, or higher than, that of the original decision-maker to review the decision and that person shall— (a) affirm, vary or annul the decision.
15. In my decision of 6 December 2024, I directed the Council to undertake a fresh internal review decision and to ensure that it designated a person unconnected with the original decision when doing so. This decision is confined to the issue I have set out in the “scope” section above, I should note that having reviewed the most recent records on file, I am satisfied that the Senior Executive Officer designated by the Council to carry out the most recent internal review is not the same Officer, who made the original decision. Thus, I am satisfied that the Council complied with the Commissioner’s direction and acted in accordance with article 11 of the AIE Regulations in this regard.
Article 7(5)
16. Article 7(5) of the AIE Regulations is the relevant provision to consider, where the question arises as to whether the requested environmental information or any further environmental information is held by or for the public authority concerned. It provides as follows:
“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 ”.
17. 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.
18. 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.
19. Article 7(5) of the AIE regulations allows 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.
Position of the Appellant
20. On 10 April 2025, the following submission was made by the appellant to this Office in relation to the new internal review decision issued by the Council on 24 March 2025:
“We refer to our Third Appeal which was notified to the OCEI on 12th March 2025 and to our subsequent email on the 20th March 2025 to the OCEI, re the failure of Limerick City & County Council to comply with the AIE Regulations.
Yesterday evening, we received an email from the Executive Officer in Limerick City & County Council who was assigned to deal with our AIE request. The email has completely ignored and failed to comply with the previous OCEI decisions in December 2024 and March 2024, annulling Limerick City & County Council's failure to provide pertinent information in relation to environmental information which is a public interest matter.
In fact, all the Senior Executive officer appears to have done is rubber-stamped the previous decision of her predecessor, A to refuse the information.
Limerick City & County Council has frustrated, delayed/withheld providing the information. Limerick City & County Council has completely ignored its responsibilities and the obligations imposed on it under the AIE Regulations. It has displayed a complete disdain for the AIE Regulations, those seeking to rely upon, those implementing and those enforcing the AIE Regulations.
We will be adding to our Appeal of 12th March 2025 and hope to have this information with the OCEI by the middle of next week.”
21. In submission to this Office on 7 May 2025, the appellant made the following points:
“This is the third Appeal to the OCEI in relation to Limerick City & County Council’s failure to provide information on an environmentally polluted site at Punches Cross, Limerick. These submissions should be read in conjunction with the previous Decisions of the OCEI made on the 14th March 2023 [139343- V1F5H1] and on the 9th December 2024 [ 149935] (…)
X is challenging the decision of Limerick City County Council made on the 24th March 2025 refusing to provide all the information requested in relation to questions 5, 6 and 7 of our AIE request made on the 2nd March 2023 over two years ago, when we requested the following information, namely:
5. Was the CEO, Dr. Pat Daly or any member of the Council Executive/Directorate or staff in the >planning Department Lobbied by any of the following
Johnathan Simpson
John Simpson,
Sophia Lawlor,
Derick Walsh
Cloncarragh Investments Ltd?
If so , may we please have details?
6. Did any Councillor or other Politician or any other person or organisation Lobby Limerick City & County Council or any of its staff in respect of the Punches Cross Development.?
If so, may we please have details?.
7. Was any Councillor lobbied by any person or party in relation to the Punches Cross Development? If so, may we please have details.?
RE: Decision by Limerick City & County Council made on 24th March 2025 ( over three and a half months later)
On the 24th March 2025, we received a very belated letter from B, Senior Executive Officer, Limerick City & County Council. The letter made no reference to the Decision of the Environmental Commissioner made on the 9th December 2024, annulling the Council’s decision and directing Limerick City & County Council to conduct a fresh internal review process.
The letter stated:
“ I have collected a fresh internal review and am now enclosing records 87 -103 which have been created to meet your request under Questions 5,6 and 7. These records are in addition to those you have received previously and include specific responses from members of staff and elected members of Limerick City & County Council”.
The cover letter of the 24th March 2025 from Limerick City & County Council:
• Did not itemise or describe the documents provided,
• Failed to identify who was contacted,
• Failed to name and identify all the management staff contacted,
• Omitted certain management staff and failed to give reasons why certain management staff were omitted,
• Failed to identify what documentation she was releasing,
• Failed to provide reasons for refusing to provide all the information,
• Failed to identify what documents were Released, refused, part-refused. (…)
No reasonswere provided by Limerick City & County Council in its letter dated 24th March 2025 for refusing/failing to provide the outstanding information .
Limerick City and County Council failed in its duty under articles 7(4) and 11(4) of the AIE Regulations to provide reasons for a refusal to release the environmental information, both at original decision and internal review stage. Where reasons are provided, although this did not occur at this stage, the reasons provided should make it clear to the recipient why a certain decision was taken. Again, this did not occur .
The duty to give reasons, which arises not only by virtue of the AIE Regulations and Directive, is recognised generally as a core principle of administrative law and a fundamental element of constitutional justice (Meadows v Minister for Justice [2010] IESC 3 and BALZ & Anor v An Bord Pleanala & Ors [2019] and Dr. Fred Logue v Fingal Council OCEI Decision 1 June 2023 Case Number : 128164-Z1WOKO and Mr M and Department of Environment, Climate and Communications OCE I Decision - 10 February 2025 (…)
In relation to Question 7 :
7. “Was any Councillor lobbied by any person in relation to the Punches Cross Development? If so, May we please have details .?”
Previous Response provided by LCCC :
“Emails sent from Cloncaragh Investments to Councillors in 2019 are attached are listed on the Schedule of records which is also attached. All 40 Councillors have been contacted and have confirmed that these emails are the only communication they hold in this regard .”
No emails sent from Cloncarragh Investments to Councillors in 2019 were provided. This information also remains outstanding .
A, like her predecessor, B, limited our request to information in relation to lobbying of councillors to merely “email” communication, however, our question was not limited to “email “correspondence. Lobbying can occur by verbal and written communication (e.g. letter, text, dm’s, telephone, online meetings, in person etc ).
The correspondence sent by A to all relevant parties was not provided and their replies to that correspondence was not provided either .
Under Article 7.5 of AIE Regulations- there is an express requirement for a public authority to clearly set out the actions it has taken in response to a request. The importance of this has been highlighted at Paragraph 20 of the previous decision of the Commissioner for Environmental Information in the matter of Environmental Trust Ireland v Limerick City & County Council . (…)”
22. On 28 November 2025, the investigator assigned to this appeal wrote to the Council, providing the content of the appellant’s submission and requesting any further comments relating to questions 5, 6 and 7, by 19 December 2025. A final submission was received by the Council on 19 December 2025.
23. In its submission, the Council addressed the appellant’s queries and stated as follows:
“Internal review decision of 24th March 2025
• The appellant was provided with a Schedule of Records that listed all emails sent to Councillors, this corresponded with the copies of the emails which were numbered in accordance with the Schedule;.
• In providing a copy of the emails sent by Cloncarragh, those who were contacted were identified;
• Management Board together with senior staff in Planning were emailed on 05/03/2025 and asked if any lobbying had been made by Cloncarragh to them, the information from their replies (both electronic and verbal) was collated and responded to in written format in the initial request in 2024. The emails from Management Board members who responded upon internal review, were included in that response;
• Subsequently on 14/03/2025 the Internal Review Officer emailed all staff (which includes Management Board) and asked if any person had been lobbied, this email was released to the appellant which included a note stating that no person responded to advise that they had been lobbied by Cloncarragh Developments Ltd.;
• The documentation released was identified on the Schedule of Records and the records were numbered accordingly;
• The Internal Appeals Officer released in her decision, all additional records identified by her in her appeal;
• The documents were released in full, there were no refusals or part grants to be accounted for..
Question 5 –
Was the CEO, Dr. Pat Daly or any member of the Council Executive lobbied by Cloncarragh Investments Ltd. If so may we please
have details"?
• The AIE Officer carried out a detailed search on the mail meter system and located emails to all elected members from Cloncarragh Developments. These emails were sent to them on 16/04/2021 and not in 2019 which was the question asked by the appellant. In the Decision Letter, the AIE Officer stated (in error) that the records being released were copies of emails in 2019. This was in fact a typo, it should have read 2021 […]
• However, as there were no emails sent by Cloncarragh in 2019, only in 2021, and the difference in the date was not detected, the AIE Officer did not have cause in this instance to explain in accordance with the regulations, the reason for refusal of such records.
Question 6 -
Did any Councillor or other Politician or any other person or organisation Lobby Limerick City & County Council or any of its staff in respect of the Punches Cross Development.? If so, may we please have details.?
Question 7 -
Was any Councillor lobbied by any person or party in relation to the Punches Cross
Development? If so, may we please have details.?"
• The AIE Officer interpreted these questions as a request for information and not specifically for a copy of records. On foot of this request, an email was circulated to all staff and members of the Council and asked if any of them had been lobbied by Cloncarragh Developments Ltd. The information collated from those responses was provided in written format and advised to the appellant in the Decision Letter. There was no intent not to release records, just to answer the questions asked. Furthermore, each reply from staff and elected members stated that they had not been lobbied and in this regard they held no records.
• In conclusion, the three questions raised by the appellant were responded to. All members of staff and the Council were contacted by email and asked if they had been lobbied by Cloncarragh Developments Ltd. The responses received were advised initially to the requestor in written format together with emails from Cloncarragh to all Council Members and finally upon appeal, a copy of the email to all staff was released to the requester with all subsequent responses from Management Board and Councillors. No records of lobbying have been identified in the searches carried out for this request.”
24. Having carefully considered the above, I am satisfied that the Council has provided this Office with a comprehensive overview of the search process in relation to items 5, 6 and 7 of the appellant’s request.,. I note the appellant has raised a number of queries as to why he feels the searches detailed by the Council have been insufficient. I have considered these queries, but I feel it is important to stress that where a public authority effectively refuses a request for records under article 7 (5) of the AIE Regulations, the question this Office must consider is whether the public authority has taken all reasonable steps to ascertain the whereabouts of relevant records.
25. To this end, the Regulations do not require absolute certainty as to the existence or location of records, as situations arise where records are lost or simply cannot be found, or, indeed, may have been destroyed in line with the body’s records management policies. The passage of time is also relevant factor in such appeals. It is also important to note that the Commissioner does not generally expect public authorities to carry out extensive or indefinite general searches for records simply because an applicant asserts that more records should or might exist, or rejects a public authorises explanation of why a record does not exist. The test set out in article 7 (5) of the AIE Regulations is whether the public authority has taken all reasonable steps to locate the record(s) sought.
26. Article 7 (5) of the AIE Regulations does not require a forensic trawling exercise to be conducted by public authorities, rather a test of reasonableness and an adequate search exercise should be performed.
27. In all the circumstances, in particular the Council’s explanation regarding the location of searches undertaken and the personnel who conducted such searches, together with the number of records that have now been identified and released in full to the appellant in relation to its request, I am satisfied that it has taken sufficient steps to determine that it does not hold further environmental information relevant to the appellant’s request and accordingly was justified in refusing the request based on article 7 (5) of the AIE Regulations.
28. Finally, I would like to acknowledge the unusual circumstances of this appeal - in that this is the third decision issued in relation to this request for environmental information. It is unfortunate that adequate searches were not carried out at an earlier stage, or the level of detail provided to this Office in the correspondence from 19 December 2025 was not provided to the appellant at an earlier point. Had it been, there is the possibility it could have avoided the need for a further appeal, or at a minimum reduced the scope of the appeal.
29. Having carried out a review under article 12(5) of the AIE Regulations, I hereby affirm the decision of the Council.
30. 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.
______________________
Gemma Farrell
On behalf of the Commissioner for Environmental Information