Decision
Ms. X and Offaly County Council
From Office of the Commissioner for Environmental Information (OCEI)
Case number: OCE-158863-L5C0C8
Published on
From Office of the Commissioner for Environmental Information (OCEI)
Case number: OCE-158863-L5C0C8
Published on
Whether the Council had taken sufficient steps to identify and locate all relevant environmental information within the scope of the appellant’s request in accordance with article 7(5) of the AIE Regulations.
21 January 2026
1. On 11 December 2024, the appellant submitted a request to the Council seeking access to the following information:
“[D]etails of the complaints received since 2007 by Offaly County Council in connection with wind farms including noise, shadow flicker cases and complaints.
I also request the relevant regulation/guidance/ standard that the complaints were assessed against and whether the cases/files are still under investigation. I do not want any individual’s personal details or any information that could identify the complainant.
If it is possible, I would appreciate the information in the form of a table to include:
* the name and location of the windfarm with Eircode if it is available
* date of the complaint
* complaint reference
* summary of the complaint with quotations from the complaint if appropriate, e.g. loud whining noise, noise is worse at night
* relevant regulation/guidance e.g. ABP condition, planning ref ABP- 123456-21, EU Regulation XX
* does the wind farm neighbour complain of sleep disturbance (or similar)
* does the wind farm neighbour complain of adverse health effects; if so please list
* complaint status e.g. file open/file closed
* complaint resolution (resolved or unresolved)
Separately, I request a copy of any noise monitoring reports carried out at wind farms since 2011.
I wish to clarify that my request for 'noise monitoring reports ' includes;
1. ad hoc reports that can occur on receipt of complaints, and
2. mandatory noise monitoring compliance reports (which occur within the initial 6/12 months of commissioning).
I also request copies of the complaint letters.”
2. The Council failed to deliver its decision within the prescribed one month period.
3. The appellant sought an internal review on 14 January 2025.
4. The Council failed to deliver its internal review decision within the time period prescribed. However, the Council did issue its effective decision on 22 April 2025.
5. The appellant brought an appeal to this Office on 12 May 2025. In submission to this Office she acknowledged the number of records identified and released by the Council in relation to this request. However she asserted that certain information that should have been held by the Council in relation to this request appears to be “missing”.
6. 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 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’).
7. What follows does not comment or make findings on each and every argument advanced but all relevant points have been considered.
8. In accordance with article 12(5) of the AIE Regulations, my role is to review the Council’s internal review decision and to affirm, annul or vary it. Where appropriate in the circumstances of an appeal, I will require the Council to make available environmental information to the appellant.9. Where an appellant asserts that further information exists beyond that which has been identified by the public authority, I consider the request has effectively been refused under article 7(5).
9. In the circumstances of this case, I am satisfied that the scope of this review concerns whether the Council was justified in refusing access to the information sought by the appellant under article 7(5) of the AIE Regulations on the basis that no further information is held by it.
10. I note that neither the original decision nor the internal review decision were provided to the appellant within the time periods prescribed. The AIE Regulations are quite clear, at article 7(2)(a), that public authorities “shall make a decision on a request…at the latest…not later than one month from the date on which [a] request is received”. I would urge the Council to comply with its statutory obligations with respect to timelines going forward.
Article 7(5) of the AIE Regulations
11. 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 ”.
12. 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.
13. I note that the appellant acknowledged at the outset of her appeal that the Council had already provided her with a significant volume of records in relation to this request for environmental information. During the course of the appeal the appellant asked for clarification on what she asserted was records that should exist beyond those which were already released to her. She set out a number of questions in this regard which were put to the Council by an investigator in this Office. The Council’s response was provided to the appellant. In follow up correspondence dated 25 August 2025, the appellant acknowledged that “while it has taken considerable time, Offaly County Council has released a substantial amount of environmental information. The volume of records supplied is significant; however, several questions raised in my submission of 9 June remain outstanding, notwithstanding the provision of the additional four records. … I request that these be addressed either through the release of the relevant records or by written confirmation that no such records exist .”
14. In this correspondence the appellant set out a number of specific points regarding information that she maintains should exist. Firstly, “Correspondence confirming that Offaly County Council issued a copy of the Arup independent noise report to the Meenwaun Wind Farm neighbours ”. The Council responded that this information does not exist. Based on the number of records that have been released in relation to the request I think its likely that such correspondence would have been identified in the searched conducted by the Council, had it existed.
15. The second item the appellant maintained should exist was: “[t]he correspondence and invitation to quote for an independent review of the Cloghan Wind Farm noise compliance report, along with replies received (including quotations) from RPS and ICAN .” The Council responded that these records have been released to the appellant. It specifically noted that, regarding RPS, the appellant should refer to record no. 19. in the schedule of records, and for ICAN the appellant should refer to records no. 5. and no. 6.
16. Finally, the appellant maintained the following should exist: “Fehily Timoney’s declaration of independence, confirming that no conflict of interest exists (similar to the declaration provided by ICAN in respect of the independent review of Meenwaun Wind Farm’s noise compliance report) .” The Council responded that information related to this had already been released and referred the appellant to “record 2, page 2 Scope of Works, and Record no. 8, page 12, section 2.2 – Personnel . _It also clarified that the “Fehily Timony declaration is worded differently to the ICAN one .“
17. As set out above, the Council explained that the further information specifically queried by the appellant either does not exist or has already been provided to her.
18. The Council’s responses were put to the appellant who confirmed she wished to continue with her appeal.
19. In these specific circumstances where the Council has already released a substantial amount of information, and has answered in my opinion, sufficiently, queries regarding the existence of certain documents, I am satisfied that adequate steps have been taken to identify all information relevant to the request. I say this with particular regard to the volume of information that has been provided to the appellant, including additional records provided during the course of the appeal.
20. While it is the appellant’s view that further information should exist, it is outside the remit of this Office to adjudicate on how public authorities carry out their functions generally, including with respect to their environmental information management practices. I have no role in assessing how public authorities collect, maintain and disseminate environmental information. My role concerns reviewing appeals of requests for access to environmental information within the scope of the request, which is held by or for the relevant public authority and no more than that.
21. In light of the above, I affirm the Council’s decision that it has taken reasonable and adequate steps to identify all information held by or for it within the scope of the appellant’s request, pursuant to article 7(5) of the AIE Regulations.
22. Having carried out a review under article 12(5) of the AIE Regulations, on behalf of the Commissioner for Environmental Information, I hereby, affirm the decision of the Council.
23. 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