Cinneadh
Mr Y and Sligo County Council
Ó Oifig an Choimisinéara um Fhaisnéis Comhshaoil
Cásuimhir: OCE-154977-W3J6Y6
Foilsithe
Teanga: Níl leagan Gaeilge den mhír seo ar fáil.
Ó Oifig an Choimisinéara um Fhaisnéis Comhshaoil
Cásuimhir: OCE-154977-W3J6Y6
Foilsithe
Teanga: Níl leagan Gaeilge den mhír seo ar fáil.
Whether the Council was justified in refusing access to environmental information relating to drainage work coming within the scope of the appellant’s request on the basis that no further relevant environmental information is held by or for it.
08 January 2026
1. This case relates to a previous appeal to this Office, reference OCE-150154-J7B4Y7
2. On 22 March 2024, the appellant submitted a request to the Council seeking access to:
“Covering the last 80 years or as far back as records allow:
1. All documents and maps of drainage work carried out by or on behalf of Sligo County Council in the townland of Tunnagh
2. All documents and maps of drainage work carried out by or on behalf of Sligo County Council on the River Owenmore or its tributaries where they form the bounder Tunnagh
Information should include all internal, external and third party communications; electronic, paper, formal or informal.”
3. On 22 April 2024, the Council issued its decision on the appellant’s request, stating:
“Sligo County Council's Bridges section replaced a bridge/culvert with a new Armco structure on R293 upstream of Tunnagh (Kilshalvy Td. ) in 2004 approx.
General maintenance was carried out on the Owenmore river adjacent to Tunnagh and along the full river and on some of its tributaries over the years but we have not detailed records of the actual work carried nor the dates the works were carried out at this stage.”
4. On 14 May 2024, the appellant sought an internal review of the Council’s decision, contending that some records of work carried out by either the Council or on its behalf should exist.
5. On 17 June 2024, the Council issued its internal review decision. In doing so it stated that it was affirming its original decision to refuse access to the information sought on the basis that no such records exist.
6. On 28 June 2024, the appellant submitted an appeal to this Office of the Council’s decision dated 17 June 2024, appeal reference OCE-150154-J7B4Y7. The scope of that review concerned whether the Council was justified in refusing access to environmental information relating to drainage works coming within the scope of the appellant’s request on the basis that no further relevant environmental information was held by or for it. I issued a decision in OCE-150154-J7B4Y7 on 18 October 2024, which is available here. I annulled the Council’s decision under article 7(5) of the AIE Regulations and directed it to carry out a fresh internal review decision-making process on the appellant’s request. In doing so, I included the following comments:
“14. […] I accept that it is unreasonable for the Council to carry out searches of older records held in the Old Jail building that are in the process of being archived, that the Council provided this Office with certain details relating to its record management practices and searches undertaken to identify and locate relevant information, and that it may be that further information sought by the appellant is not held by or for the Council. However, the Council has not provided sufficient details in its decisions or its submissions to this Office relating to the searches carried out, including those referred to in its internal review decision.
15. Indeed, while the Council indicated that various physical and electronic, including email, searches were undertaken across different sections of the Council, notwithstanding repeated requests from this Office, it at no stage provided the details of the specific search terms used, the specific physical files searched, or the specific electronic databases and main frame computers searched. The Council also did not identify where the information provided at internal review was located, clarify whether any individuals, including those consulted, other than the Senior Engineer carried out searches of their emails, or what specific searches any of the individuals or particular sections consulted carried out.
16. I also wish to note that although the Council indicated that the Environment Section, the Planning Section, the Roads Section, and the Area Office were contacted, and the copies of the emails between relevant staff members when processing the request provided to this Office indicate that those individuals were consulted, the Council did not explain in its submissions to this Office their positions or the sections in which they worked, leaving it for this Office to ascertain from the context of the emails, which is more difficult.
17. As indicated above, while I accept that it is unreasonable for the Council to carry out searches of older records held in the Old Jail building that are in the process of being archived, that certain search details have been provided, and it may be that further information sought by the appellant is not held by or for the Council, the Council has not provided sufficient details of the searches carried out. In the circumstances, I cannot be satisfied that the Council has carried out adequate steps in an effort to ascertain the whereabouts of all information coming within the scope of the appellant’s request. I find, therefore, that the Council was not justified under article 7(5) of the AIE Regulations in refusing access to further information.
18. Accordingly, I consider that the most appropriate course of action to take at this stage is to annul the decision of the Council, the effect of which is that the Council conduct a new internal review decision-making process in respect of the appellant’s request in accordance with the AIE Regulations.
19. For the sake of completeness, notwithstanding the fact that the Council’s decision under article 7(5) of the AIE Regulations was not justified, given the Council’s comments in its internal review decision that it had been “unable to determine whether any other public authority might possess the records” and its subsequent comments in its submissions to this Office to the effect that the OPW may have carried out relevant works, I wish to draw the Council’s attention to article 7(6) of the AIE Regulations. Article 7(6) provides that where article 7(5) applies and the public authority concerned is aware that the information requested is held by another public authority, it shall as soon as possible (a) transfer the request to the other public authority and inform the applicant accordingly, or (b) inform the applicant of the public authority to whom it believes the request should be directed. Finally, I wish to note that it is open to the appellant to make a separate request to the OPW, should she wish to do so.”
7. On 20 November 2024, the Council issued its new internal review decision. The Council reiterated previous information provided relating to historic records that are stored at Council headquarters in the Old Gaol building. As set out above, in my previous decision I acknowledged that I accept that it is unreasonable for the Council to carry out searches of older records held in the Old Gaol building. The Council’s new internal review decision set out the following in relation to additional searches carried out:
i. The Council noted that it used the keywords ‘Owenmore River’ and ‘Tunnagh’ in carrying out searches of hard drives within the Environment, Planning and the Roads Section.
ii. The Council interviewed an Administrative Officer in the Planning Section and requested a search for any records in either paper or electronic format that the Planning Section may have relating to works outlined in the appellant’s request. The Council noted that “the AO has confirmed that the Planning Section have no records of this nature”.
iii. The Senior Engineer in the Environment Section noted that he carried out a search on the hard drive of the Environment section and also paper files stored in the Council offices. He confirmed that no records exist.
iv. The Council instructed a former SEE Roads Engineer, who now works in the Environment section, to search his hard drive using the same above keywords. He confirmed that no records of this nature exist on his hard drive and also noted that any paper files from his time in roads would have remained in the roads office.
v. The Council interviewed the A/Senior Engineer in the Roads section and also requested that he interview relevant staff in the areas offices and in the main Roads Office in Sligo – High Market House. The Council noted that these included the SEE and Grade in High Market House and also the Area Engineer in Ballymote and the Area Engineer in Tubbercurry. The Council outlined that the relevant staff were instructed by the A/Senior Engineer to carry out thorough searches of the offices for both paper files and files stored on hard drives, also using the search words of ‘Tunnagh’ and ‘Owenmore River’.
vi. The Council’s new internal review concluded that “following interviews with the staff outlined above and a thorough search of records – both hard drive and paper files - in the Planning, Environment and Roads Offices..[the Council] can confirm that nothing further other than the information already conveyed to [the appellant] previously has been discovered”.
8. On 2 January 2025, this Office received an appeal submitted by the appellant on the Council’s decision dated 20 November 2024, appeal reference OCE-154977-W3J6Y6.
9. I have carried out a review under article 12(5) of the AIE Regulations. In so doing, I have had regard to the correspondence between the Council and the appellant, as outlined above, and to correspondence between this Office and both the Council and the appellant. 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)
10. What follows does not comment or make findings on each and every argument advanced but all relevant points have been considered.
11. In accordance with article 12(5) of the AIE Regulations, the role of this Office 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, the Commissioner will require the public authority to make available environmental information to the appellant.
12. As noted, this case related to my decision dated 18 October 2024. The scope of that decision concerned whether the Council was justified in refusing access to environmental information relating to drainage works coming within the scope of the appellant’s request on the basis that no further relevant environmental information was held by or for it. I annulled the Council’s decision under article 7(5) of the AIE Regulations.
13. While this appeal concerns the Council’s new internal review decision dated 20 November 2024, having examined the file I am satisfied that the scope of this appeal remains focused on article 7(5) as previously considered in my decision of 18 October 2024.
14. As such, the scope of this appeal concerns whether the Council was justified in refusing access to environmental information relating to drainage works coming within the scope of the appellant’s request on the basis that no further relevant environmental information is held by or for it.
15. Within the appellant’s statement of appeal, she outlined her basis for a further appeal. I do not propose to repeat this in full as the Council have received a copy of this. However, in summary her basis for appeal included the following:
i. Lack of Compliance with OCEI Findings
ii. Inadequate Search Methodology
iii. Failure to Address Historical Records
iv. Non-compliance with article 7(6)
v. Unresolved Questions about the “Master File”
16. Having reviewed the Council’s new internal review of 20 November 2024, the Investigator wrote to the Council with a number of queries and also seeking clarification on searches carried out by the Council for any relevant information which may exist.
17. With reference to (ii) of the Council’s internal review decision, the Investigator first asked the Council for clarification on the exact searches carried out by the Planning Section. The Council’s response of 15 September 2025 set out that “the planning section would only have records in circumstances that (i) the works were the subject of a planning application or (ii) the works were the subject of a Part 8 for local authority development. The registers for both were reviewed and confirmed that no such applications were made. Accordingly, the planning section has no relevant records”.
18. With reference to (iii) of the Council’s internal review decision, the Council were asked to outline what the Senior Engineer’s search of the Environment section hard drive entailed, such as if any specific date parameters were set for his hard drive search or if any dated paper files were searched in the Council offices. The Council’s response set out that the Senior Engineer in the Environment section is no longer with Sligo County Council and the SEE Roads Engineer had retired. Therefore, the Council explained that the Senior Executive Officer in the Environment section determined that “the best forward approach was to carry out a new search of the records”.
19. On that basis, the Council set out that the “Information Technology Department (IT) has a new service which allows a search of files held on the Council server since year 2000. The IT Department undertook a search using word Tunnagh and found thirty-six files on the server”. The Council noted that these files were reviewed by the SEO, and three documents were found in the vicinity of Tunnagh.
20. In addition, the Council outlined that “the IT Department maintains a record of emails entering and leaving the Council server. A MailMeter application installed in 2007 has the facility to search the entire Council email system. Using the search word Tunnagh this found one thousand and fifty-two emails”. The Council added that these emails were reviewed by the SEO and relevant emails related to drainage in Tunnagh were located.
21. In considering this case the Investigator also reviewed email correspondence which the Council provided to this Office on 30 September 2024. At that time, the previous Investigator queried the whereabouts of the ‘Master File’ and the Council’s position was that it could not be located. The Council were asked to set out its updated position re the ‘Master File’ and indicate if any further searches had been carried out to locate it. In response, the Council outlined that there are four hardcopy files on Owenmore drainage in the Environment Department. The Council added that the SEO reviewed the files and a number of documents relating to drainage and rivers were located.
22. The Investigator had also asked the Council to outline if it held any general records that document any drainage works carried out. In response, the Council provided a table of Area Engineers who worked in Tubbercurry and Ballymote areas which also set out any existing knowledge of drainage works in Tunnagh.
23. The Council further set out that the SEO in the Environment section also investigated whether any drainage works were carried out for the Owenmore Drainage Committee. In relation to the Owenmore Drainage Committee, the Council provided the following:
“The main channel to northeast of Tunnagh townland and stream to south of Tunnagh are within the Owenmore Drainage District
[…]
The Owenmore Drainage Committee lobbies for works to be carried out on the River Owenmore. This includes communicating blockages to Sligo County Council for the purpose of removal and maintenance works on the said areas”.
24. In relation to any drainage works carried out for the Owenmore Drainage Committee, the Council provided the following:
“the Main Channel of the River Owenmore to the northeast of Tunnagh townland had drainage works carried out in 2003/2004. This work did not involve widening or deepening of the channel but rather cleaning of the riverbanks for blockages and obstructions.
[…]
the stream on the south side of Tunnagh, from R293 to main channel was cleaned in 2005/2006. No further works have been undertaken on River Owenmore in Tunnagh since that date”.
The Council also provided the Investigator with an extract from its financial management system which shows expenditure charged to ‘Owenmore Drainage B Mote’. The Council noted that “the works were carried out by Contractor but there is no further detail of the actual location where works were undertaken on the system”.
25. The Investigator had also noted the Council’s position in this Office’s previous decision where the Council stated that “any recent works to the river would be carried out by the Office of Public Works (OPW)”. In considering this appeal the Investigator searched the arterial drainage schemes under the remit of the OPW and could not find any reference to the Owenmore River. Accordingly, the Council were asked to confirm if Sligo County Council remains solely responsible for drainage works carried out on the Owenmore River. In response, the Council confirmed that the “River Owenmore is not an arterial drainage scheme under auspices of Office of Public Works. Sligo County Council is responsible for the River Owenmore from Collooney to Gorteen”.
26. 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.
27. 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.
28. As set out in the “Background” section of this decision, the Council’s internal review decision of 20 November 2024 concluded that nothing further other than the information already previously provided to the appellant had been discovered. However, the Council’s letter to OCEI of 15 September 2025 in response to Investigator queries indicates that additional records do exist.
29. Having considered the Council’s updated position and further searches as set out to the Investigator, the Investigator requested that the Council release the additional information found to the appellant.
30. The Council released the relevant documentation to the appellant on 14 October 2025. The appellant was also provided with a copy of the letter sent to the OCEI outlining the searches. Following this, there was correspondence between the appellant and the Council to address some issues the appellant was having with accessing the information. The Council engaged with the appellant to rectify these issues.
31. As outlined above, a review by my Office is considered to be de novo, which means that it is based on the circumstances and the law at the time of my decision. This approach has been endorsed by the decision of the High Court in M50 Skip Hire Recycling Limited v the Commissioner for Environmental Information 2020 IEHC 430 .
32. Having considered this case and reviewed all the relevant information above, and in consideration of the fact that a review by this Office is de novo, I am satisfied that the Council has taken reasonable steps to identify all relevant information held by it in relation to the appellant’s request and that article 7(5) of the AIE Regulations applies. I am satisfied that further relevant information has been released to the appellant, and the appellant has not contended that any additional information should be released in relation to her request. I would note that it is also open to the appellant to make a new AIE request to the Council, should she consider it necessary to do so.
33. Accordingly, I will affirm the Council’s decision in this instance on the basis that I am satisfied that the Council has taken reasonable steps to identify all relevant information and, while I note the appellant had difficulties accessing the information, I am satisfied that it has been released to her. I expect the Council to work with the appellant to ensure that she has an accessible version of the records.
34. Having carried out a review under article 12(5) of the AIE Regulations, I affirm the Council’s decision.
35. 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