Decision
Mr X Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine
From Office of the Commissioner for Environmental Information (OCEI)
Case number: OCE-140417-B2W3Y5
Published on
From Office of the Commissioner for Environmental Information (OCEI)
Case number: OCE-140417-B2W3Y5
Published on
1. On 11 May 2023, the appellant requested the following;
a. “A copy of the AA Screening documentation (including Determination and In-Combination Assessment) for all unexpired felling licences for which no AA was required and which are not available to view on the FLV.”
2. The Department wrote to the appellant on 16 May 2023 asking him to narrow the scope of his request. However, the appellant was not amenable to this option and the Department proceeded to issue its original decision.
3. On 9 June 2023 the Department issued its original decision to the appellant. In it’s decision the Department stated;
“I have made a decision on your request on 12 May 2023. This request was asked to be narrowed on 16 May 2023, as it was deemed too broad. The requester replied that they had “no intention of modifying this request” on the same date. The complexity of this request cannot be underestimated, and the broad nature of this request must also be taken into consideration, it must be emphasised that this cannot be accurately assessed until work commences on retrieving any requested information as no specific contract numbers or time frames were given. DAFM officers would have to be required to explore all felling licences to ascertain if they are expired or otherwise, they would then be expected to review if they were required to have an AA screening or not, they would then be required to see if any of the requested documents were available on the FLV or not, this task would then be followed up by making electronic copies before reviewing them to see in any reaction is necessary before making these documents available to the requester. The searching of such a broad range of records, along with any examination of the kind of records concerned would place an unreasonable demand on DAFM resources so as to cause a substantial and unreasonable interference that would disrupt the work of the Department and its ability to perform its core functions. “
4. The appellant requested an internal review of this decision on 13 June 2023.
5. On 30 June 2023, the Department issued its internal review decision stating;
“In my opinion this request would place an unreasonable demand on DAFM resources so as to cause a substantial and unreasonable interference that would disrupt the work of the Department and its ability to perform its core functions.”
6. The appellant appealed to my Office on 12 July 2023.
7. 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 the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine. 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’).
8. What follows does not comment or make findings on each and every argument advanced but all relevant points have been considered.
9. In accordance with article 12(5) of the AIE Regulations, the role of this Office is to review the Department’s internal review decision and to affirm, annul or vary it. The scope of this review relates to whether or not the request made by the appellant was formulated in too general a manner under article 9(2)(b) or can be considered as manifestly unreasonable under article 9(2)(a) of the AIE regulations.
10. Article 9(2)(a) of the AIE Regulations provides that a public authority may refuse to make environmental information available where the request is manifestly unreasonable having regard to the volume or range of information sought. This provision seeks to transpose Article 4(1)(b) of the AIE Directive, which provides that Member States may provide for a request for environmental information to be refused if the request is manifestly unreasonable, and, in turn, is based on part of Article 4(3)(b) of the Aarhus Convention.
11. Article 9(2)(a) of the AIE Regulations must be read alongside article 10 of the AIE Regulations. Article 10(3) of the AIE Regulations requires a public authority to consider each request on an individual basis and weigh the public interest served by disclosure against the interest served by refusal. Article 10(4) of the AIE Regulations provides that the grounds for refusal of a request shall be interpreted on a restrictive basis having regard to the public interest served by disclosure. Article 10(5) of the AIE Regulations provides that nothing in articles 8 or 9 shall authorise a public authority not to make available environmental information which, although held with information to which article 8 or 9 relates, may be separated from such information.
12. The Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee (ACCC) has emphasised that “whether or not a request is manifestly unreasonable relates to the nature of the request itself, for example, its volume, vagueness, complexity or repetitive nature, rather than the reason for the request, which is not required to be stated.” (Report adopted on a request for advice by Belarus, ACCC/A/2014/1 , paragraph 28).
13. The Minister’s Guidance, at paragraph 12.8, states that article 9(2) of the AIE Regulations“clarifies that a public authority may refuse to make information available if the request is considered unreasonable due to the range of material sought, if the request is too general or if the material requested is not yet completed. Public authorities are requested to invoke these grounds for refusal sparingly, and to assist the applicant (to reformulate a request, for example) as appropriate” . In light of this, I am of the view that where a public authority intends to refuse a request under article 9(2)(a) of the AIE Regulations, it should first assist the appellant to reformulate the request as appropriate. Both public authorities and appellants should seek to liaise constructively with a view to processing the request as efficiently as possible. It is important to note that constructive engagement is not, in and of itself, a requirement for a public body’s reliance on or an immediate basis for refusal under article 9(2)(a) of the AIE Regulations.
14. Article 4(1)(b) of the AIE Directive provides that “Member States may provide for a request for environmental information to be refused if the request is manifestly unreasonable”. The European Commission’s First Proposal for the AIE Directive for the AIE Directive envisaged that the exception in Article 4(1)(b) would cover requests“variously described in national legal systems as vexatious or amounting to an abus de droit.” It noted that“compliance with certain requests could involve the public authority in disproportionate cost or effort or would obstruct or significantly interfere with the normal course of its activities. Public authorities should be able to refuse access in such cases in order to ensure their proper functioning.” The Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee (ACCC) has emphasised that“whether or not a request is manifestly unreasonable relates to the nature of the request itself, for example, its volume, vagueness, complexity or repetitive nature, rather than the reason for the request, which is not required to be stated.” (Report adopted on request for advice by Belarus, ACCC/A/2014/1, para. 28).
15. In respect of a request which is voluminous or wide-ranging, within the meaning of article 9(2)(a) of the AIE Regulations, more than simple volume or complexity is required. Both article 7(2)(b) of the AIE Regulations and Article 3(2)(b) of the AIE Directive specifically envisage that public authorities will deal with voluminous or complex requests, albeit in a longer timeframe. In this respect, I note the findings of the Court of Justice of the European Union in T-2/03 Verein für Konsumenteninformation v. Commission (Konsumenteninformation) , at paragraphs 108-110, and the guidance at page 84 of the Aarhus Guide. I also note the parallel duty in Article 7(1) of the AIE Directive to ensure that public authorities organise environmental information with a view to its active and systematic dissemination to the public. In his Opinion in C-217/97 Commission v Germany at paragraph 30, Advocate General Fennelly stated that this duty indicates that individual requests should, in principle, be on matters of detail. As such, the fact that a request is detailed does not mean that it is necessarily unreasonable.
16. When considering whether a request is manifestly unreasonable, it is necessary to examine the impact on the public authority of dealing with the request. In particular, I must examine whether responding to the request would involve the public authority in disproportionate cost or effort, or would obstruct or significantly interfere with the normal course of its activities. In light of the findings of the Court of Justice of the European Union in T-2/03 Verein für Konsumenteninformation v. Commission , at paragraphs 101-115, I consider that the exception in article 9(2)(a) is only available where the administrative burden entailed by dealing with the request is particularly heavy. The burden is on the public authority to demonstrate the unreasonableness of the task entailed by the request. I expect that if a public authority wishes to rely on the manifestly unreasonable nature of a request, that public authority will clearly demonstrate the actual and specific impact that dealing with the request would have on its normal activities.
17. This position is supported by recent comments from Advocate General Medina in his opinion on BnM v Commissioner for Environmental Information Case C-129/24 , in which he stated“in so far as it constitutes an exception to the general rule that information must be provided, refusal on the ground of a manifestly unreasonable request must remain exceptional” (at paragraph 117). In this opinion he also states“In particular, with regard to the volume of the information requested, according to Article 3(2)(b) of Directive 2003/4 that factor (as well as the complexity of the information requested) justifies an extension of the one-month time limit in which the administration must reply. It follows from a combined reading of Article 3(2)(b) of Directive 2003/4 and Article 4(2)(b) of that directive that the volume of the requested information alone does not render a request manifestly unreasonable” (at paragraph 119). He concludes however that a holistic view must be taken of each case, stating “it follows that determining whether a request is manifestly unreasonable depends not on the number, the nature or the frequency of requests taken in isolation, but on all the circumstances of each case” (at paragraph 125).
18. It is also important to bear in mind article 5 of the AIE Regulations and Articles 7 and 3(5) of the AIE Directive, which place duties on public authorities to organise and actively disseminate environmental information, to support the public in seeking access to information and to put practical arrangements in place to ensure the effective exercise of the right to access environmental information. It is not within this Office’s powers to examine the implementation of article 5 of the AIE Regulations or article 7 of the AIE Directive by public authorities. However, I am satisfied that the exemption in article 9(2)(a) is not intended to endorse any failure by a public authority to comply with its duties to organise and disseminate environmental information under those provisions. Furthermore, in every case, regard should be had to the purpose of the AIE Regime, as reflected in Recital 1 of the Preamble 6 to the AIE Directive, which provides that“increased public access to environmental information and the dissemination of such information contribute to greater public awareness of environmental decision-making and, eventually, to a better environment.” Accordingly, in cases involving article 9(2)(a) this Office may consider whether the information requested is the kind of environmental information that one would expect to be organised by the public authority in a manner that enables its easy dissemination.
19. I note that following the appellant’s original request dated 11 May 2023, the Department wrote to the appellant on 16 May 2023 asking them to narrow the request as“…it was deemed too broad.” The Department suggested either a specific contract number or a specific timeframe be added to the request in order to assist it in dealing with the request in an efficient manner. The appellant noted that he did not wish to narrow the request and subsequently the original decision was issued.
20. I am satisfied that the Department sought a reformulation of the request in this case in an attempt to refine its review of the identified records in order to be able to respond to the request.
21. In its preliminary submission to this office, the Department advised that it had contacted the appellant to narrow the request due to the“…large volume of files that would be encompassed in this request.” In order to demonstrate the volume of information encompassed by the appellant’s request, the Department compiled a report of felling licences dating from 2017 which had not been referred to ecology and therefore would not contain AA documentation. The Department advised that although the appellant’s request was for all unexpired felling licences, this report only included felling licences from 2017 – 2023 as any pre-2017 felling licences were paper based and the Department had“…no system is in place, other than checking every single paper based file, to ascertain in an efficient manner if the file was referred to Ecology other than hand written notes on the file.” The Department stated that:
22.“The IT ticket returned a total of 3205 Felling Licences that are currently in date that were issued between 2017 to date that all would need to be individually checked to see if an AA document was present, if it was present that any redactions were needed and completed and then made public. A considerate estimate would be 5 minutes per file, 5 x 3205 files = 16025 minutes (268 hours). As licences are 10 years in length at a maximum I think it is reasonable to guesstimate that from 2013 to 2017 that a similar number of paper licences would have also been within the scope of this request. So with an estimated 3000 paper based licences that would need to be located within the premises across many different storage areas, checked to see if they were issued within the window, checked to see if they are still in date, check to see if Ecology referral was needed, check AA documents, redact if necessary, work with IT to create an IFORIS file from them, upload and make public could take at least 30 minutes per file, with the exception of the IT work which could take a number of weeks to create a system to do this, that’s approximately 1500 hours’ worth of work conservatively.”
23. The Department noted that it had attempted to engage with the requester to narrow the scope in order to assist them in finding any relevant information.
24. The investigator wrote to the Department on 10 March 2025 seeking further information.
25. On 25 April 2025, the Department responded outlining that each felling licence had a contract number this was accounted for on the 2017-2023 schedule provided by its IT department. In order to assess these licences for AA screening documentation each contract number would have to be entered into the iForis system and all records under that felling licence reviewed in order to establish if the relevant records exist. In its submission the Department stated:
26.“The record would then have to be saved, reviewed, numbered and prepared for issuance. To note - the number of 3,205 felling licences are for post 2017 private licences only and do not include the equivalent number of Coillte licences.
The Coillte licence tracking system record AA documents in folders on a Shared drive. This does not distinguish between those that have expired or not, nor those that were sent to Ecology or not, therefore each record would have to be reviewed to see if it was still a valid licence and if it was screened out for Ecology. In addition, thinning licences are up to 10 years, so all thinning licences batches would have to be checked from 2013 onwards. Also note that private licences are not on iFORIS before 2017, so a similar exercise would be required for older ones.”
27. The Department advised that its policy requires that all records are reviewed prior to release and where redactions would be required it may take an estimated 5 minutes per record. Furthermore, it contended that even where no redactions were necessary the search, review and preparation of records for issuance would still take a considerable amount of time.
28. Furthermore, the Department advised that the 2017-2023 felling list which contained 3,205 items, related only to private felling licences post 2017 and did not include Coillte licences. In an effort to resolve the matter, the Department filtered the report to show private licences for the time period between 2017 and 11 January 2021 (the date the Forestry Licence Viewer went live) this resulted in 2,500 records.
29. The Department noted that the retrieval of the information for the entirety of this request would have involved a disproportionate cost and effort which would have interfered with the ability of the unit to perform its normal duties.
30. The Department stated the following in relation to the estimated time it would take to provide the information from the filtered 2017-2021 felling licence report:
31.“The previous estimation was a very conservative estimation. I asked a member of the AIE team to conduct a review of 5 licences on the spreadsheet. This took the staff member, on average and without redaction 5 minutes for each licence. 5 minutes per licence x 2,500 = 12,500 minutes or 208 hours. Bearing in mind that these are only the unexpired private licences post 2017, the real figure would be far in excess of this calculation. The Forestry Licencing Division has 87 staff members with 9 staff working full-time in the Forestry AIE unit (over 10% of staff ). There are 3 clerical officers in the AIE unit responsible for the administration of AIE requests, along with seeking and preparation of records for all Forestry AIE requests and internal reviews. It is a busy unit, which processed 833 AIE requests and 349 internal reviews in 2024, with the release of 10,715 records. In order for DAFM to attempt to satisfy this request, it would impose a very heavy burden on the AIE unit, with the likelihood that other AIE requests would be unresponded to and we would not meet our legislative responsibilities under the AIE regulations.”
32. In summary the Department demonstrated that to retrieve, assess and release the information for 2,500 records it would take 208 hours which equates to nearly 6 weeks of full time work for one staff member. It is important to note that this estimate relates only to private felling licences which have already been identified and post-date 2017 and are prior to 2021. In order to satisfy the appellant’s request the Department would have to search paper files from 2013-2017 for both private licences and Coillte licences together with their electronic system for Coillte licences from 2017-2023.
33. While the appellant raised a number of queries as to how the Department’s IT system might be utilised to search for and identify the information sought, I am satisfied that the Department has clearly set out the steps that would be required to be taken to process this request.
34. Having regard to the nature of the request, I am satisfied that the information sought is both voluminous and wide-ranging. The time frame of the request spans 10 years, paper and electronic files and is specific in a way which is not readily searchable for the Department at this time.
35. The Department has identified 3,205 felling licences which fall within the search but date from 2017 to 2023. Prior to 2017, the felling licences were kept on paper files and have not been transferred to the Department’s electronic system. This leaves a period of 4 years of paper files to be searched and assessed. Furthermore, the Department advised that the report generated private licences only and did not include any Coillte felling licences.
36. The Department stated that the time required to carry out the search, identification, assessment and release of 2,500 records arising from a filtered version of the report within a timeframe of 2017-2021 (when the Forestry Licence Viewer was introduced) would be approximately 29 days of work by one person devoted to the functions it described as necessary. The Department has noted the significant interference this would have in the course of its daily functions. I am satisfied broadly that the Department’s time estimates for the various functions required to verify the relevance of each felling licence and the records therein to ascertain releasability of each are sufficiently detailed to warrant credibility and that they indicate a requirement by the Department to assign the various tasks to a person or persons of such seniority within the organisation that is capable of carrying out the review of the records and the application of any exempting AIE provisions.
37. It is my understanding that the estimate of 205 hours given by the Department is in fact a conservative estimate based on the ability to generate a report containing the relevant licences for a snapshot of 2,500 records. A review which encompassed the search, retrieval and identification of relevant documents on physical files would in all likelihood take longer than the allotted 5 minutes that the Department outlined in its submission. I am satisfied that each felling licence would need to be accessed either electronically or on the hard copy file and each record assessed within the scope of the request, whether exemptions apply in full or in part, and to subject them to the public interest balancing test of article 10(3) of the AIE regulations. I am satisfied that a review of every active felling licence which is not available on the Forestry Licence Viewer each record within each of the active felling licences requires to be examined in order that determination be made as to whether it falls within the scope of the request (AA screening documentation present for active felling licences where no AA was required) and to the appropriateness of the application to it of any exempting provision and the public interest balancing test.
38. I have had regard in this case to the volume and the search parameters of the information sought, the task that must reasonably be undertaken to identify it and the impact of dealing with such a request on the Department’s other functions. I am mindful that the exception in 9(2)(a) is only available where the administrative burden entailed by dealing with the request is particularly heavy. I note in this regard that for a refusal under 9(2)(a) to be justified, it must be manifestly unreasonable, not just voluminous.
39. Article 9(2)(a) of the AIE regulations is an acknowledgment of the fact that public authorities should not be required to undertake the processing of AIE requests where to do so would place an unreasonable burden on what are often limited resources. In contrast with public perception that public authorities have unlimited resources not only to carry out their other statutory functions but also to engage with the AIE access regime, the reality is that this is not the case but they have a budget within which to contain expenditure. In the circumstances of this case and having regard to the Department’s conservative time estimate, which I find not unreasonable, and the resources required, I accept its contention that the processing of the request in its entirety would place an unreasonable burden on it, involving disproportionate effort that would result in a significant interference with its other work. I am satisfied that the result would be a particularly heavy administrative burden on the Department. On the facts of this appeal, I find that the threshold under article 9(2)(a) has been met and that the request is manifestly unreasonable.
40. As noted above, the exception in article 9(2)(a) is not intended to endorse any failure by public authorities to comply with their duties of dissemination of environmental information under article 5 of the AIE Regulations and Article 7 of the AIE Directive. Accordingly, it is relevant to consider whether the information requested is the kind of environmental information that one would expect to be organised by the public authority in a manner that enables its easy dissemination. The appellant in this case sought access to information held within active felling licences but which was not easily identifiable without a full review of the records on each felling licence. Whilst I note the appellant has narrowed the search to those active felling licences/documents which are not available on the forestry licence viewer the volume of records and the nature of how they were stored from 2013 to 2021 represents a significant body of work for the Department to undertake. I must also note that this Office has no jurisdiction over a public authority’s obligations regarding the collection, storage or organisation of environmental information, and I must make my findings based on the information held by the public authority and the steps that would be required to process this request.
41. I emphasise that my conclusion in this should not be taken to mean that public authorities may rely on the exception in article 9(2)(a) in respect of every request for voluminous or wide-ranging information. Each request to a public authority must be considered on its own particular facts. Public authorities have obligations under the AIE Directive and the AIE Regulations and must put in place adequate resources to comply with those obligations.
42. Although I have found article 9(2)(a) of the AIE Regulations is engaged, that is not the end of the matter. It is necessary to weigh the public interest served by disclosure against the interest served by refusal as is required by articles 10(3) and (4) of the AIE Regulations.
43. In considering the public interest served by disclosure, it is important to be mindful of the purpose of the AIE regime, as reflected in Recital 1 of the Preamble to the AIE Directive, which provides that“increased public access to environmental information and the dissemination of such information contribute to greater public awareness of environmental decision-making and, eventually, to a better environment.” The AIE regime thereby recognises a very strong public interest in openness and transparency in relation to environmental decision-making.
44. The AIE regime also acknowledges that there may be exceptions to the general rule of disclosure of information, as noted in Recital 16 of the AIE Directive, which provides that“public authorities should be permitted to refuse a request for environmental information in specific and clearly defined cases” . One such case is where the request is manifestly unreasonable having regard to the volume or range of information sought. The public interest in maintaining the exception lies in ensuring that the processing of AIE requests does not cause an unreasonable interference and/or disruption of the work of a public authority.
45. As previously mentioned, despite there having been engagement between the parties on the matter of reducing the scope of the request, the appellant was unwilling to narrow his request. The Department provided sufficient information on how the relevant information for the time period is stored and I do not consider that the information sought (AA screening documentation present for active felling licences where no AA was required) to be the kind of environmental information that one would expect to be organised by the Department in a manner that enables its dissemination under article 5 of the AIE Regulations.
46. In its internal review decision the Department stated that“..in accordance with Article 10(3) and 10(4) I have weighed the public interest served by disclosure against the interest served by refusal of your request. I have determined that the public interest would not be served by disclosing the information you request. The factors in favour of release of this information are the making available to the public, where practical and allowed under the law, in a transparent manner, information affecting the environment. The factors in favour of withholding this information are the Department’s obligation to discharge its core functions, including responding to other AIE requests, which would be adversely affected by the unreasonable demand this voluminous request would place on Department resources.”
47. The Department has submitted a conservative estimate based on a restrictive report resulting in some 2,500 felling licences to be reviewed which would result in 29 full days of work for one employee. This figure did not include the thousands of records contained on hard copy files nor any Coillte licences. Given the impact on the Department should it undertake searches of the 2,500 felling licences, I am satisfied that the work required to complete the task for all environmental information falling within the scope of the request would significantly interfere with the ability of the Department to continue its day to day duties.
48. The appellant provided submissions on the public interest argument noting the importance of access to the requested information to ascertain if the Department is meeting its obligations under Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive. Furthermore, it was argued that the Department should have better administrative and organisational practices to allow it to easily search and disseminate the information in question. Whilst there is a strong public interest for the release of the information for the interests of compliance, I do not feel that it outweighs the disproportionate burden which would be placed on the Department in this instance. While the appellant argues that this is the type of information that the Department should be able to easily access, this Office has no jurisdiction regarding the collection, storage or organisation of information by a public authority.
49. In my view, the public interest in ensuring the proper administration of public authorities and ensuring that the administrative burden placed on them by virtue of the AIE Regulations is not unduly onerous or is such as could negatively impact their day-to-day administration or operations. I am also of the opinion that there is a very strong public interest in giving public authorities the space to carry out their statutory functions. Additionally, there is a public interest in ensuring good corporate governance of public authorities, in consequence of which the imposition of a burden on a public authority to answer an AIE request of significant volume, which has the effect of diverting a senior member or members of staff from key duties on matters of strategic importance, regulation and governance, is not ultimately in the interests of the public.
50. It should also be considered when assessing the public interest, that the Department made efforts to try and reduce the administrative burden entailed in answering this request by engaging with the appellant with a view to narrowing the request. Unfortunately, in this instance, the appellant was unwilling to reduce the scope of the request.
51. In all the circumstances, having regard to the nature of the request, the period of time to which it relates, the resources and the work required to attend to the request, particularly the requirement that a sufficiently senior member of staff devote almost 6 weeks to this work (based on the 2,500 filtered report) or 48 weeks (based on the estimates for the review of all documents), the resulting significant interference with the normal course of the Department’s activities, impacting negatively on the work it is required to carry out under statutory obligation, I accept the Department’s submissions relating to the public interest weighing in favour of refusal.
52. I emphasise that my conclusion in this case should not be taken to mean that public authorities may rely on the exception in article 9(2)(a) in respect of every request for voluminous or wide-ranging information. Each request to a public authority must be considered on its own particular facts. Public authorities have obligations under the AIE Directive and Regulations and must put in place adequate resources to comply with those obligations.
53. I would note that the appellant has also argued that Article 10(5) applies to refusals under Article 9(2)(a) and that even if the request is manifestly unreasonable a public authority must consider whether it can reasonably release a proportion of the information; not refuse it all. I note that article 10(5) states “(5) Nothing in article 8 or 9 shall authorise a public authority not to make available environmental information which, although held with information to which article 8 or 9 relates, may be separated from such information.” I do not consider that this article can be applied in this appeal as I do not consider that there is any reasonable or logical way that the Department can seek to “release a proportion” of the information sought. Indeed, the Department sought to engage with the appellant to refine the request to a proportion of the information sought and the appellant was not willing to do so at that time.
54. It is open to the appellant to submit a new request to the Department and to engage with the Department regarding that request.
55. As I have found that article 9(2)(a) applies to the request, I do not need to consider the application of article 9(2)(b).
Decision
56. Having carried out a review under article 12(5) of the AIE Regulations, I affirm the decision of the Department.
57. 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