Cinneadh
Mr X and Dublin City Council
Ó Oifig an Choimisinéara um Fhaisnéis Comhshaoil
Cásuimhir: OCE-157331-Z1M9X0
Foilsithe
Teanga: Níl leagan Gaeilge den mhír seo ar fáil.
Ó Oifig an Choimisinéara um Fhaisnéis Comhshaoil
Cásuimhir: OCE-157331-Z1M9X0
Foilsithe
Teanga: Níl leagan Gaeilge den mhír seo ar fáil.
Whether the Council was justified in refusing the appellant’s request on the basis that no information within the scope of that is request is held by or for it
16 July 2025
1. On 4 December 2024, the appellant contact Dublin City Council (the Council) with the following request:
"The Liffey Cycle Route interim scheme to construct a two way cycle route from George's Quay, through Burgh Quay to O’Connell Bridge and a single cycle way on to Aston Place on Aston Quay. Construction commenced in late February 2024 and was anticipated to complete construction in Q1 2025. It is not possible to partially open the two way cycle track as all works including traffic lights at Aston Quay to bring cyclists from the right hand side back to the left hand side of the road need to be complete. Works at the Moss Street/ Georges Quay junction was the second last area to be constructed, commencing in the last week of August, necessitating the closure of the existing cycle crossing points. Discussions between the contractor, traffic management contractor and DCC Active travel concluded that closing the cycle crossing point until the commissioning of the new traffic lights, was the safest option. We anticipate the opening of the complete cycle route and junction in January 2025."
The emphasis in the quoted text is mine. I am making a demand under SI133/2007, the European Communities (Access to Information on the Environment) Regulations 2007 for all records of these discussions and their outcome.”
2. The Council responded to this request on 5 February 2025, refusing the appellant’s request. The Council outlined the reasoning for this refusal was based on confirmation from the Active Travel Programme Office Project Manager that no records were held that relate to the subject of the appellant’s request. Consequently the request was refused on the basis that the ‘information is not held by or for Dublin City Council’.
3. The appellant requested an internal review on 11 February 2025, which also outlined his view that the Council had limited the scope of his request and also contending that relevant categories were not examined.
4. The appellant did not receive a response to his internal review request within the allowable timeframe, and submitted an appeal to this Office on 12 March 2025 on the basis of a deemed refusal.
5. Following correspondence with this Office, the Council issued an internal review letter to the appellant on 14 March 2025 (dated 10 March 2025), citing an administrative error for the response not being issued sooner.
6. The appellant indicated he was not satisfied with the internal review response and wished to continue his appeal.
7. I have now completed my 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 Dublin City Council. 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’).
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 public authority’s internal review decision and to affirm, annul or vary it. Where appropriate in the circumstances of an appeal, I will require the public authority to make available environmental information to the appellant.
9. Pursuant to article 7(5) of the AIE Regulations, the scope of this review is to investigate whether the Council has conducted adequate searches in order to locate all records which may come within scope of the original AIE request.
10. It is noted that the Council failed to issue the internal review decision to the appellant within the prescribed timeframe due to an administrative error. However, once contacted by this office the Council issued the internal review decision to the appellant. Public Authorities should be mindful of the timeframes prescribed under AIE Regulations when dealing with AIE requests.
11. In the appellant’s appeal to this Office, he noted his dissatisfaction at the timeline of responses with his original request to the Council. He outlined that the response only issued to him on 6 February 2024, which was a week before the re-opening of the junction to which his request related to. The appellant set out his view that this made his effort to participate in environmental decision-making moot.
12. The appellant also provided a submission on 28 March 2025. He submitted that he was “aware from a response to a query [he] made to Dublin City Council "customer service" that a decision or a series of decisions was made to simply close a cycle lane/crossing at a busy city centre intersection for months on end with no arrangement for a diversion. This resulted in the ad-hoc mixing of a heavy flow of bike lane traffic with foot and car traffic throughout the winter of 2024-25”.
13. The appellant outlined his view that “any decisions affecting traffic management arrangements fall squarely into Aarhus Convention territory, and that in particular, human health and safety is at issue in the instant case”. He submitted that he sought any documentation pertaining to the decision to close the cycle crossing.
14. The appellant submitted that he believed the customer service response he quoted in his initial request is clearly a record documenting the decision. He added that he would be surprised to learn that there is absolutely no paper trail between that response and the relevant department, at minimum. He further submitted that would be material that ought to have been returned in response to his request. In addition, the appellant submitted that he would be “quite shocked if it really is the case that there is no documentation, no risk assessment, no record of objective criteria considered, no diary note, no details of meetings at all, where a decision made allegedly on safety grounds was concerned”.
15. In relation to the public interest, the appellant submitted that “as the Dublin City Active travel office is responsible for a broader programme of bike infrastructure development at public expense, it is obvious that its practice of closing bike lanes for extended periods during works warrants scrutiny and discussion in the public interest”.
16. The appellant also submitted contentions concerning non-engagement and the decision-making process of Dublin City Council which have been noted.
17. The Council, at both original decision and internal review stage, refused access to the information requested on the basis that the information did not exist.
18. There is no reference in the Council’s original or internal review decisions of any searches having been conducted in relation to the appellant’s request. The Council provided a submission to this Office on 16 April 2025 in support of the decision to refuse the appellant’s request. In particular, I note the following:
“The project team conducted a full detailed and thorough search of all their files and records associated with the project in response to the initial AIE Request and again following the request for Internal review of the decision on that request.
These files include contract progress meetings between the Active Travel Programme Office and the contractor, traffic management plans, records of meetings between the Active Travel Programme Office and Dublin City Council Roads & Traffic and traffic permit files”.
19. The Council further stated that “neither of these file and record searches identified any record of discussion between the contractor, traffic management contractor and DCC Active Travel concluding that closing the cycle crossing point until the commissioning of the new traffic lights, was the preferred option”.
20. 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.
21. 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.
22. The Investigator issued a further request for submissions on 3 June 2025 asking the Council to provide details of actual searches carried out for any information which may exist in this case.
23. The Council were asked to outline the following:
i. Details of how searches were carried out in relation to the specific files mentioned in its submission.
ii. To confirm if any of the discussions as referenced in the appellant’s request could have taken place via phone call, text, or discussion on site.
iii. Any email or document searches carried out by the Active Travel Programme Office Project Engineer, including providing any search terms used to locate any relevant information.
24. The Council’s response set out that “The DCC Active Travel Programme Office implements the National Record Retention Policy for Local Authority Records 2021 – approved for use by LGMA on 10th March 2021 – Transportation and Infrastructure”. The Council submitted that “a separate Project folder is created to implement document management on each project”.
25. The Council submitted that “searches were conducted on separate occasions manually, in the physical project folder, by name”. It further set out that “this search was supplemented in the offices mailbox using key words search.”
26. In addition, the Council submitted that “the Active Travel Programme Office files alone were searched. No other section would be expected or required to hold the records requested”. The Council noted that “a search was also carried out of unfiled emails by the Project Engineer”. The Council also supplied a Memo from the Active Travel Programme Office with its response, noting that it was to address additional queries in the request for submissions.
27. The Council have merely made reference to searches being conducted, and similarly stated that that a keyword search was undertaken. There is no specific reference to any particular key words used to attempt to locate any relevant information and the Council has not explained the basis on which it concluded that the information sought does not exist.
28. In addition, on review of the Memo supplied by the Active Travel Programme Office, it was the Investigator’s view that the Memo references information that is directly relevant to the appellant’s request. In particular, the Active Travel Programme Office referenced specific Project Diary entries which included the following:
• 21 August 2024 – “An email calendar invite entitled ‘Roadworks at George's Quay City Quay’ was sent with two traffic management plans (listed below) for the junction with City Quay and Moss Street, to DCC Road Works Control (RWC - who issue traffic permits) and DCC Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS - who manage and control traffic lights in the City). In order to construct the new crossing point as illustrated….and to install civil works such as ducting, new kerbing, traffic islands etc. in a safe and efficient manner for both the works contractor and the public, it was necessary to close the existing cycling crossing point across City Quay and Moss Street and direct cyclists to dismount and use the remaining pedestrian crossing…”.
• 22 August 2024 – “This is the date for the MSTeams meeting to discuss the above traffic management plans and other items, with DCC Road Works Control, DCC Intelligent Transport Systems, Works Contractor (i.e. Cairn Construction Limited) and DCC Active Travel site staff”.
• The Active Travel Programme Memo also provided an attendance record for the above mentioned meeting.
29. The appellant’s request was for all records of“[d]iscussions between the contractor, traffic management contractor and DCC Active travel concluded that closing the cycle crossing point until the commissioning of the new traffic lights, was the safest option” . As set out above, the Council provided an email calendar invite with two traffic management plans, and also a date and attendance record of a meeting which appears to have been specifically held to discuss the traffic management plans.
30. It is not permissible for the Council to rely on article 7(5) of the AIE Regulations in circumstances where it appears that information directly related to the appellant’s request is in existence. The Council also did not justify how its position at the original decisions was that no records were held related to the appellant’s request, and yet the information gathered by the Active Travel Programme Office appears to be directly relevant to the request. It also raises the question as to what searches were carried out in the first instance. Further, based on the information provided to OCEI, it is possible that additional records may also exist within the scope of the request that have not been identified by the Council.
31. Accordingly, I cannot find that the Council has taken adequate steps to identify and locate all relevant environmental information held by it.
32. Having carried out a review under article 12(5) of the AIE Regulations, I annul the Council’s decision in its entirety and direct it to consider the appellant’s request afresh and make a new internal review decision in accordance with the provisions of the AIE Regulations. In processing a new internal review decision, the Council should consider sharing the Active Travel Programme Office Memo prepared for OCEI with the appellant along with carrying out fresh searches for any additional information which may exist in relation to the appellant’s request.
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