Decision
Ms. X and The The Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland
From Office of the Commissioner for Environmental Information (OCEI)
Case number: OCE-157694-K7M4Q4
Published on
From Office of the Commissioner for Environmental Information (OCEI)
Case number: OCE-157694-K7M4Q4
Published on
Whether the SEAI was justified in refusing the appellant’s request on the basis that no further environmental information within the scope of that request is held by or for it.
26 February 2026
1. This review has its origins in a request formulated following engagements between the appellant and the SEAI in 2024. On foot of those engagements, the appellant submitted a multi-part request under the AIE Regulations to the SEAI on 9 December 2024, as follows:
“No. 1
A csv file would be ideal, thank you.
No. 2 & No. 3
I have email communication between RPS and a third party, RPS requests the wind turbine make and model, and follows up requesting any noise monitoring, confirming they are working on a ‘wind turbine noise model‘.
Given your response I wish to add the following requests.
No. 4
A copy of the request to tender for which RPS won the contract to update SEAIs wind turbine database. Also, any reports regarding this work, scoping, summary reports etc.
No. 5
I request a list and a copy of all wind farm / turbine noise monitoring reports held by SEAI.
No. 6
I request a copy of all communications regarding wind farm/ turbine noise since 2019.”
2. The wording of the earlier version(s) of the appellant’s request was not provided to this Office, but would appear to be reflected in the SEAI’s original decision of 9 January 2025, in which it responded to each item in turn:
“No. 1
I request access to the most recently updated Wind Turbine database; detailing all available information, not limited to the following; wind farm name, location, MEC_MW, commissioning date, cru connection date, no. of turbines, turbine make and model, name plate, etc.
[SEAI:] See attached a folder containing the csv files as discussed. Please note that SEAI assemble this data from other public domain sources, e.g. the planning process, the grid connection process etc. As SEAI is not the original source of the data it is important to state that SEAI cannot be held liable for the accuracy of the data. This is particularly so with the planning data. No responsibility is accepted by or on behalf of the SEAI for any errors, omissions or misleading content in these files.
No. 2
Also, during the 2020 RPS requested noise measurements. I request a list of all received and a copy of all noise measurements/reports. I have email communication between RPS and a third party, RPS requests the wind turbine make and model, and follows up requesting any noise monitoring, confirming they are working on a ‘wind turbine noise model‘
[SEAI:] SEAI has not requested any noise measurements from RPS and does not hold records of this nature. As I have been unable to locate any relevant records, I must therefore refuse this part of your request.
No. 3
In 2020, RPS under contract to SEAI was developing a 'turbine noise model'. I request a copy of the scoping document, all draft and final reports, correspondence and records pertaining to the turbine noise model.
[SEAI:] See the pdf file attached to this email which contains any records we hold in this regard.
No. 4
A copy of the request to tender for which RPS won the contract to update SEAIs wind turbine database. Also, any reports regarding this work, scoping, summary reports etc.
[SEAI:] No request to tender was issued for this work. Any records pertaining to the proposal for this model are provided in response to point 3. above. As I have been unable to locate any relevant records, I must therefore refuse this part of your request.
Taking parts 2 to 4 of your request in the round, please note that the proposal for the Noise Model was ultimately unsuccessful. The majority of wind farm companies approached at the time to provide wind turbine data did not respond or refused to provide these data. Unfortunately, the small amount of information that was eventually obtained was insufficient to allow the construction of a holistic model, and for this reason the work did not ultimately result in the provision of analysis, data or reports to SEAI.
No. 5
I request a list and a copy of all wind farm / turbine noise monitoring reports held by SEAI.
[SEAI:] SEAI does not commission such reports, or request providers to submit them. If these are emailed to us unsolicited, please refer to my response to No. 6 below.
No. 6
I request a copy of all communications regarding wind farm/ turbine noise since 2019.
[SEAI:] As explained to you on 20th December, this part of your request is very broad, and without significant narrowing down would involve the search for and examination of an excessive number of records to determine what could be released to you. It is open to you to refine and resubmit a more reasonable specific request for consideration.”
3. The appellant sought an internal review of the SEAI’s original decision on 7 February 2025, and the SEAI issued its internal review decision on 7 March 2025, in which it affirmed its original decision.
4. It would appear that the SEAI identified 11 pages of records relevant to the appellant’s request and part-granted access to same. These records comprise correspondence between the SEAI and RPS concerning proposals to create a wind turbine noise model, a proposal letter from RPS, and other information. It is unclear from the information before me exactly when the SEAI part granted access to this information, but I am satisfied from both the SEAI’s and the appellant’s correspondence with this Office that it did.
5. On 25 March 2025 the appellant made an application for a review by this Office of that internal review decision in relations to parts 2, 3 and 4 of her request.
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 SEAI. 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. As set out above, in her application for review, the appellant indicated that she was unhappy with the SEAI’s internal review decision in relation to parts 2, 3 and 4 of her request. The appellant is of the view that the SEAI holds further information in relation these three parts of her request that it has failed to identify/locate. Furthermore, the appellant is of the view that RPS holds information on behalf of the SEAI by virtue of the fact that it was attempting to create a wind turbine noise model for the SEAI.
9. Accordingly, I am satisfied that the scope of this review is confined to whether the SEAI has taken all reasonable steps to identify and locate environmental information within the scope of parts 2, 3 and 4 of the appellant’s request as formulated on 9 December 2024.
10. A company named RPS is mentioned throughout this decision. According to its website, RPS is a company that provides “[t]echnical services and consulting solutions for clients in the property, energy, transport, water, resources, defence and government sectors.”
11. It is relevant to note that this Office previously found that RPS is not a public authority within the meaning of article 3(1) in case CEI/17/0015.
12. Article 7(1) of the AIE Regulations requires public authorities to make available environmental information that is held by or for them on request. It 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.
13. What will be considered reasonable will vary from case to case, but as a general guide, I set out below the type of information that my Office would generally expect to be set out in a decision where a public authority is relying on article 7(5) of the AIE Regulations:
(i) an outline of exactly which areas/units etc. of the organisation were searched for the information;
(ii) an explanation of how searches were carried out (i.e. manually, by computer, by name, by key words). Keywords should be recorded and provided in the decision as appropriate;
(iii) details of the individuals consulted in connection with the search;
(iv) a description of the searches carried out to cover the possibility of misfiled/misplaced records;
(v) details of guidelines, practices, procedures and arrangements in relation to the storage, filing, archiving, retention and destruction of the type of information requested in this case;
14. 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. In some cases, the details of the searches undertaken by the public authority will be sufficient for this Office to determine whether the steps taken meet that standard of reasonableness. In other cases, certain factual explanations detailing the context of the subject matter of the request or other relevant matters may be sufficient to do so, either in addition to the details of the searches undertaken by the public authority, or in their place.
15. As stated above, I must be satisfied that adequate steps have been taken to identify and locate relevant environmental information, having regard to the particular circumstances. This Office has no role in assessing how public authorities collect, maintain, and disseminate environmental information. The role of this Office concerns reviewing appeals of requests for access to environmental information within the scope of a request, which is held by or for the relevant public authority. This Office has no jurisdiction over whether or not a public authority should hold environmental information relevant to a particular AIE request.
16. Having carefully reviewed the SEAI’s submissions, it is clear that both the searches it has taken and the explanations it has provided are relevant in assessing its position that it has taken reasonable steps to identify information relevant to the appellant’s request.
17. The appellant’s position in this review appears to me to primarily revolve around the following two contentions:
a. First, that the SEAI does hold further records relevant to the creation of a wind turbine noise model, and in particular a “final” report on the model that was communicated to the Department of Environment and records relating or arising from this report.
b. Secondly, that RPS was acting on behalf of the SEAI in attempting to create a wind turbine noise model and therefore all information RPS holds in relation to that process should be considered held by the SEAI.
18. The SEAI provided details to this Office as to the steps it has taken to identify the information it holds relevant to the request, some of which are summarised above. As outlined, the SEAI performed email searches using the individual terms “wind”, “turbine” and “noise”, which it stated “yielded an overwhelming number of spurious e-mails that included the individual words “wind”, “turbine” and “noise” unrelated to the subject matter of the request.” Following this, it narrowed the search to the specific term “‘wind turbine noise’, which led to it locating key e-mails relating to the “2020 contract.”
19. Furthermore, the SEAI stated to this Office that the report sent to the Department of the Environment, and referred to by the appellant in correspondence with this Office, actually dates from 2016 and therefore predates the period of time in which the appellant is interested in.
20. I have had regard to the steps taken by the SEAI to locate and identify relevant records, the fact that the SEAI did actually find and release information relevant to the appellant’s request (albeit not at original decision stage), and that the wording of the appellant’s request is clearly specifically concerned with the SEAI’s 2020 contract with RPS to develop a wind turbine noise model.
21. On this last point, it does appear that the report referred to by the appellant in her submissions to this Office is not in fact relevant to her request or this review. The SEAI has stated that that report dates from 2016, whereas the appellant’s request is clearly framed around a report she believes RPS created in or after 2020. It would appear to me that much of the thrust of the appellant’s arguments in this review rely on the mistaken belief that the report from 2016 is in fact a report arising from the SEAI’s engagements with RPS in and around 2020.
22. However, the SEAI has been very clear in its submissions to this Office that RPS produced no such report following the purchase order in 2020 and has explained why no such report or indeed wind turbine noise model exists. Essentially, the SEAI has stated that RPS was unable to produce the wind turbine noise model because it could not gather the required information from the relevant stakeholders. I have no reason to doubt the veracity of the SEAI’s position in this regard.
23. Having considered the submissions and explanations provided by the SEAI to this Office, I consider that the steps taken by the SEAI to locate and identify information it holds relevant to the appellant’s request meet the standard of reasonableness. I say this bearing in mind a number of records have been identified by the SEAI and granted to the appellant in respect of this request for information.
24. The appellant has also argued that any information RPS holds concerning its efforts to create a wind turbine noise model should be considered to be held on behalf of the SEAI. For instance, I note that in her appeal to this Office the appellant specifically argued that “RPS undertook a survey on behalf of SEAI, any noise reports received are 'held for' SEAI and I request a list of all received and a copy of all noise measurements/reports received to RPS”.
25. I have carefully considered this point and have noted the queries raised and view expressed by this Office’s investigator on this matter and the SEAI’s response. However, I consider that there is an important distinction between the product or service a public authority may contract a third party to create or provide, and the constituent elements and/or methods and practices the contracted third party uses to provide such a product or service. In this case, RPS, the contracted third party, was not even able to create the “National scale Wind Turbine Noise Model” it described in its fee proposal document to the SEAI. If it had been able to create the wind turbine noise model proposed, and it held that model, that model would clearly be held by RPS on behalf of the SEAI.
26. However, I do not consider that information held by RPS on the steps it took to try and create such a model, including responses from relevant stakeholders, can reasonably be considered to be held by the SEAI, particularly when the SEAI has stated that the service/product it sought from RPA “[…] was for the creation of a computational noise model on proprietary industry standard noise modelling software. The collection and provision to SEAI of noise measurement data from wind turbines or wind farms was not part of the specified scope of supply.”
27. It is important to again note that where a public authority refuses a request for records under article 7(5) of the AIE Regulations, the question this Office must consider is whether the public authority has taken all reasonable steps to ascertain the whereabouts of relevant records. The AIE Regulations do not require absolute certainty as to the existence or location of records, as situations arise where records are lost or simply cannot be found, or, indeed, may have been destroyed in line with the body’s records management policies. It is also important to note that this Office does not generally expect public authorities to carry out extensive or indefinite general searches for records simply because an appellant asserts that more records should or might exist or rejects a public authority’s explanation of why a record does not exist. The test in article 7(5) is whether the public authority has taken all reasonable steps to locate the records sought.
28. During the course of this review, the SEAI identified a brief note made by an SEAI staff member of a conversation with an RPS consultant on 18 November 2020, just before the contract was closed. The SEAI provided this Office with a copy of that note.
29. Although this telephone note was provided to this Office as evidence that the wind turbine noise model contract with RPS ended without producing a model, having reviewed the note, I consider that it falls within part 3 of the appellant’s request and is therefore within the scope of this review.
30. In this case, I must assess whether the steps the SEAI has taken to identify the information it does holds were reasonable. That is to say, I must assess whether the steps taken by the SEAI meet the standard of reasonableness as it applies in this particular case. Given the details of the steps taken and the explanations provided by the SEAI during the course of the review, I am satisfied the SEAI has taken reasonable steps to identify all relevant information in this particular case.
31. Having considered the matter, I vary the SEAI’s decision to refuse the request on the basis of article 7(5) and I annul the SEAI’s decision in respect of the note record located during the course of the review. I direct the SEAI to undertake a fresh decision-making process on this record.
32. For the reasons I have set out above, I am satisfied that I can now affirm the SEAI’s decision to refuse the request in respect of any additional relevant records on the basis of article 7(5) and I consider that adequate steps have been taken to identify and locate all relevant environmental information on this occasion.
33. Having carried out a review under article 12(5) of the AIE Regulations, I vary the SEAI’s decision. I annul its decision insofar as it applies to the note record identified during the course of this review and I direct the SEAI to carry out a fresh decision-making process on this record. For the reasons set out above, I affirm the SEAI’s decision to refuse the request in respect of any additional relevant records on the basis of article 7(5).
34. 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