Cinneadh
Mr. M and The Office of Public Works [the OPW]
Ó Oifig an Choimisinéara um Fhaisnéis Comhshaoil
Cásuimhir: OCE-157805-C7M2D7
Foilsithe
Teanga: Níl leagan Gaeilge den mhír seo ar fáil.
Ó Oifig an Choimisinéara um Fhaisnéis Comhshaoil
Cásuimhir: OCE-157805-C7M2D7
Foilsithe
Teanga: Níl leagan Gaeilge den mhír seo ar fáil.
Prior to the OPW confirming it would release the withheld information, whether the OPW was justified in redacting certain information contained in the records relevant to this request under article 8(a)(iii) of the AIE Regulations.
13 January 2026
1. On 16 January 2025, the appellant sought the following information from the Office of Public Works (OPW):
i. “All surveys/reports generated in relation to flood relief plans for Blackpool, Cork City from 1st January 2024 to date. (17/01/2025)
ii. All communications with the Department of Public Expenditure, NDP delivery and Reform from 1st January 2024 to date (17/01/2025) in relation to flood relief plans for Blackpool, Cork City.
I would like to receive these records in digital format please.”
2. The OPW delivered its original decision on 14 February 2025 and stated that it had located the following records relevant to the request:
• Bride FRS Otter Survey*
• Bride FRS Aquatic Baseline Survey*
• Bride FRS Fisheries Report*
• Bride FRS Bat Survey Report*
Supplementary Information Request - River Bride FRS (e-mail to DPENDR dated 20/12/24)
3. The appellant sought an internal review of the decision on 17 February 2025 stating that the redactions “made it impossible to verify the accuracy of the Triturus survey ” and sought copies of the documents in unredacted form.
4. The OPW wrote to the appellant on 14 March 2025 advising that “due to unforeseen circumstances there will be a delay in responding ” but that it would respond “as soon as possible_.”
5. The appellant responded to the OPW on 24 March 2025 stating that he was “not sure ” what the delay was in circumstances were the records are “already published .”
6. The OPW delivered its internal review decision on 25 March 2025 and affirmed the original decision to partially grant access to the information requested and sought to rely on article 8 (a) (iii) of the AIE Regulations in respect of the redactions applied.
7. The appellant appealed to this Office on 28 March 2025.
8. 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 Office of Public Works. I have also examined the contents of the records at issue. 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’).
9. What follows does not comment or make findings on each and every argument advanced, but all relevant points have been considered.
10. During the course of the investigation, the information relevant to this appeal was published as part of the River Bride (Blackpool) Drainage scheme in unredacted form, by the Department of Public Expenditure, Infrastructure, Public Service Reform and Digitalisation.
11. I note in the appellant’s request for internal review dated 17 February 2025, he stated he had no intention of diverging the location or holts, seats, sprainting or resting places to the general public. While the release of information to an individual pursuant to the AIE Regulations does not automatically deem such information public, the effect of such a direction is that a public authority will be unable to justify a refusal to other applicants.
12. I note the Internal Review decision was not provided to the appellant within the time period 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 ”. It is noted that the OPW wrote to the appellant on 14 March 2025, advising that it would be delay in delivering its internal review decision due to “unforeseen circumstances .” This correspondence failed to comply with article 7 (2) (b) of the AIE Regulations, which requires public authorities, who are unable to deliver its decision within the prescribed one month period “because of the volume or complexity” of the environmental information request, to (i) give notice in writing of the reasons why it is not possible to do so and (ii) specify the date, not later than 2 months from the date on which the request was received, by which the response shall be made. I would urge the OPW to comply with its statutory obligations with respect to timelines going forward.
13. The OPW part-granted access to four records/surveys identified as relevant to the appellant’s request. The records were provided to the appellant, subject to redactions in respect of all information relating to the locations of these surveys which include text, maps and pictures that were “concluded could be employed to identify the precise locations of the surveys ” pursuant to article 8 (a) (iii) of the AIE Regulations.
14. The appellant objected to the redactions carried out and the general thrust of his objection was that the redactions made it impossible to verify the accuracy of the (Triturus) survey.
15. The OPW provided submissions to this Office dated 25 April 2025 and clarifications were also provided in response to queries raised by the Investigator assigned to this appeal, in correspondence dated 23 June 2025. The appellant was provided with the OPW’s submissions (and further submissions), and he provided a response dated 26 July 2025.
16. In correspondence to this Office dated 08 September 2025, the appellant advised that the records the subject of this appeal had been published on the Consultation Page for the Blackpool Flood Relief Scheme on 04 September 2025.
17. The Investigator assigned to this appeal invited the OPW to comment on the fact the documents were now publicly available in unredacted form and the OPW in response dated 28 October 2025, stated as follows:
“OPW acknowledges the Department of Public Expenditure, Infrastructure, Public Service Reform and Digitilisation has, subsequent to OPW’s decision, made the unredacted version of the document available publicly.
In the circumstances, given the appeal is a de novo appeal, OPW is satisfied to provide the unredacted document to the appellant, at this time and in these circumstances.”
18. I note the appellant elected to proceed with his appeal.
19. A review by this 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.
20. I am satisfied the OPW are no longer seeking to rely on any exemption within the AIE Regulations to withhold, partially or otherwise, information within the records identified as being within scope of the appellant’s request.
21. Having considered this case and reviewed all the relevant information, and in consideration of the fact that a review by this Office is de novo, I am satisfied to affirm the OPW’s new position and, for the sake of completeness, direct release of the records in unredacted form.
22. My conclusion in this case is limited to the facts and circumstances of the particular appeal.
23. Having carried out a review under article 12(5) of the AIE Regulations, I affirm the OPW’s decision and direct the OPW to release the information, in unredacted form to the appellant.
24. 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