21. The appellant’s second set of submissions was made in response to assertions made by Coillte to this Office about extracts contained within the emails between Coillte and the Department referred to above and which had been provided to this Office by the appellant. For the purpose of fair procedures, those assertions were conveyed to the appellant for comment. The broad thrust of the appellant’s submissions is that the subject matter of the emails spans wider than purely the archaeological feature contended by Coillte and encompasses the road extension the subject of his appeal. In his submissions, he adduces an extract from one of those emails, namely the email of 30 May 2022 from a Department officer to Coillte officials and which he maintains is evidence of information, relevant to his request pertaining to the road extension and not only to the archaeological feature, but which has not been provided to him by the public authority. He contends, further, that there must be information in Coillte’s possession that relates to communications between Coillte and the contractor engaged to carry out the extension works on the road, encompassing the change in the length of the extension from 99 metres to 60 metres and the terms of the tender process to engage the contractor for the works in question. The appellant also provided to this Office a copy of a Departmental inspection report of the site of a road extension and the archaeological feature which he contends demonstrates that the roads indicated in the photograph of this report do not align with the roads indicated in the Activity Pack. He also provided an aerial photograph from Google Maps which, he states, shows what he terms a “new road” that appears to be well in excess of the 62m detailed in the report’s map, adding that Google Maps indicates that the planned 99m road has not been constructed and that what has been constructed is something altogether different from that indicated in the Activity Pack. A further document provided was a screenshot from his GIS showing the Black Pig’s Dyke and information from Coillte's Forest Road layer which, in his words, “gives a good picture of what was in place prior to these works.” Finally, while asserting the existence of a “massive information gap” regarding the works that are the subject of his request, he concedes that this does not mean that records, other than those provided to him by Coillte do, in fact, exist. I give consideration to the issues above further below at paragraphs 41-44.