Decision
Mr. F & Coillte
From Office of the Commissioner for Environmental Information (OCEI)
Case number: OCE-161481-L7K8H6
Published on
From Office of the Commissioner for Environmental Information (OCEI)
Case number: OCE-161481-L7K8H6
Published on
Whether Coillte has established that it did not hold information within the scope of the appellant’s request in accordance with article 7(5) of the AIE Regulations
08 December 2025
1. This appeal relates to a decision by the Commissioner for Environmental Information to annul and remit an internal review decision of Coillte. The Commissioner directed Coillte to consider the appellant’s request afresh and issue a new internal review decision.
2. The request in this appeal received by Coillte on 27 September 2024 was as follows:
“(1) “All information related to the design, construction and development consent sought and received for the section/s of forest road leading from the public road to the start of the proposed forest road CN95595. To include details for the whole of RN09R0003.
(2) All information related to the design, construction and development consent sought and received from the section/s of forest road leading from the public road to the start of the proposed forest road CN95186. To include details for the whole of RN04R1027.
(3) All information related to the design, construction and development consent sought and received for the section/s of forest road leading from the public road to the start of the proposed forest road CN94714. To include details for the whole of SO06R1035” (the “Request”).”
3. On 24 October 2024, Coillte informed the appellant they were extending the timeframe for dealing with the request by two months from the date on which the request was received, as permitted by Article 7(2)(b).
4. In its original decision dated 27 November 2024, Coillte refused the information sought on the basis that it does not exist pursuant to article 7 (5) of the AIE regulations. Coillte set out the steps taken to search for the information:
“…it was assigned to Coillte Forest’s Engineering Process Manager who is the relevant subject matter expert. After extensive searches were conducted it was confirmed by the SME that specific information related to the construction of these roads is not available. Significant time was taken to conduct an extensive search of the older records system (FIS – Forest Information Systems). However, there is no common reference or link between the old data (the entity used to record the works completed) and the current system (LRM – Land Resource Manager), which has made it impossible to retrieve detailed historical records about these roads' construction.
Furthermore, consultations were carried out between the Engineering Process Manager and local BAU teams to gather any insights or historical context. Despite these efforts, the passage of time and subsequent staff changes meant that no detailed or reliable information could be obtained. It is also important to note that these roads were built prior to the introduction of the regulatory requirement to obtain a licence from the Department of Agriculture, Food, and the Marine (DAFM). As this requirement was established after the roads were constructed, no such licences would have been issued or necessary at that time.”
5. On 27 November 2024, the appellant requested an internal review of Coillte’s decision on the basis that “it is not clear precisely what searches were undertaken and what time period was covered .” He also stated that Coillte’s comment in the original decision "It is also important to note that these roads were built prior to the introduction of the regulatory requirement to obtain a licence from the Department of Agriculture, Food, and the Marine (DAFM). As this requirement was established after the roads were constructed, no such licences would have been issued or necessary at that time ." was prematurely definitive in circumstances where Coillte do not appear to know when the roads were constructed particularly where there is publicly available evidence to contradict the statement.
6. As the original internal review decision dated 23 December 2024 was annulled under case reference OCE-155264-B2P6X3 , Coillte delivered a fresh internal review decision on 13 August 2025, , varying the original decision. It set out the historic context of the “process of developing forest roads and the obligation to obtain consent ” together with “the relevance of the historic position to the request_” and it provided information in respect of “relevant searches for the purposes of Article 7 (5) ” of the AIE regulations.
7. The appellant appealed the fresh internal review decision to this Office on 14 August 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 parties. 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’).
9. What follows does not comment or make findings on each and every argument advanced, but all relevant points have been considered.
10. In accordance with article 12(5) of the AIE Regulations, the role of the Commissioner 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.
11. The scope of this review is concerned with whether Coillte was justified in refusing access to environmental information coming within the scope of the appellant’s request on the grounds that no relevant information was held by Coillte under article 7(5) of the AIE Regulations.
12. In his appeal to this Office dated 14 August 2025, the appellant stated that Coillte’s remitted fresh internal review decision “focused heavily on the development consent aspect without addressing the design and construction aspects of the request” and he questioned whether Coillte’s data retention policy is consistent with the requirements of the AIE Directive and Regulations.
13. The appellant also provided submissions to this Office dated 25 August 2025 where he contended that Coillte had failed to adequately address his request stating, amongst other things, as follows:
“Providing a copy of the technical approval is not sufficient to meet my request .
To secure approval Coillte must have submitted an application - this would be the information on the 'development consent sought '.No information has been provided on applications made to DAFM for example …”
“…Projects were designed and constructed irrespective of the need for development consent. Records should exist but have not been provided .
Coillte have linked the need for records to the need for development consent but this is a false link in terms of the scope of my request …”
14. With specific reference to Coillte’s reliance on its data retention policy, namely that from 2021, a maximum 5-year retention period was implemented and all emails older than 5 years are automatically deleted, the appellant argued that this statement appears to put Coillte in conflict with their duty to maintain environmental information under the Regulations arguing that information should be archived not deleted so that when requests like this one are submitted, the archive can be searched.
15. Regarding Coillte’s position that The Forestry Information Systems, which held information in relation to road management activities was decommissioned and is no longer used or accessible by Coillte staff member, the appellant stated that “decommissioning does not equate to deletion. The body of information could still exist but has not been searched.”
16. By correspondence dated 28 August 2025, Coillte elected to rely entirely on the contents of the remitted internal review decision dated 13 August 2025. As Coillte’s position has already been exchanged, I do not intend to repeat it in full here. I will set out the key arguments put forward and I will quote directly from the same, as appropriate.
17. What follows does not comment or make findings on each and every argument advanced, but all relevant points have been considered.
18. In this matter, Coillte’s contends that no records exist in relation to the request for environmental information. Article 7(5) of the AIE Regulations is the relevant provision to consider where the question arises as to whether the requested environmental information or any further environmental information is held by or for the public authority concerned. It provides as follows:
“Where a request is made to a public authority and the information requested is not held by or for the authority concerned, that authority shall inform the applicant as soon as possible that the information is not held by or for it .”
19. Article 7(5) of the AIE regulations allows a public authority to refuse a request if it does not hold the requested information. In order for a public authority to successfully rely on this provision, it must, amongst other things, provide evidence that it carried out adequate searches for the environmental information requested. The requirement under article 7(5) of the AIE Regulations for a public authority to clearly set out the actions it has taken in response to a request is not only necessary for this Office in its considerations but also gives confidence to the appellant that suitable search procedures were conducted in response to their request.
20. The duty to give reasons for the refusal of requests arises not only by virtue of the AIE Regulations and Directive but is also recognised generally as a core principle of administrative law and a fundamental element of constitutional justice (see, for example Meadows v Minister for Justice [2010] IESC 3 and Balz & Anor v An Bord Pleanála & Both of these judgments, in the same way as the AIE Regulations, make it clear that where a requester has all or part of a request refused, they are entitled to be provided with clear reasons for that refusal.
21. This duty arises so that the requester can take a view as to whether they consider refusal justified, or whether they wish to exercise their entitlement to have the refusal reviewed, whether at internal review stage or through an appeal to this Office.
22. 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.
23. In this matter, Coillte maintain that the roads, the subject of this appeal, were constructed prior to the introduction of a regulatory requirement to obtain a licence from the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine (the Department), essentially arguing that planning records would not exist prior to 21 September 2011 (Section 17 of the Environment (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2011”). I refer to paragraph 25, case reference OCE-155264-B2P6X3 which stated as follows:
“While it is not the role of this Office to determine if Coillte complied with its regulatory requirements or to identify when the road was constructed, the relevant point is if construction of these roads occurred after 21 September 2011 a license would have been required, and this information would fall within the scope of the request .”
24. I note Coillte has provided a substantial level of detail in its fresh internal review decision dated 13 August 2025 as to why it considers no “formal” records exist in relation to the roads, the subject matter of this appeal – by which it means no planning applications or forestry licence applications exist. The essence of Coillte’s explanation is that the construction of the forest roads at issue in this appeal, all began prior to 21 September 2011 – when formal records were typically not created, maintained or retained by Coillte due to the fact that there was no legal obligation to provide such information to a consenting authority. Coillte provided a substantial amount of background detail in relation to how it came to this conclusion – which can be summarised as follows:
- Before the extent of the requirements of EU law (in particular the Habitats Directives), were fully appreciated by, and implemented into Irish Law, the construction of forest roads was historically undertaken on an “as needed” basis by contractors without the need for extensive construction management documentation or records.
- Reflecting this historic understanding, the precursor to the current Forestry Act 2014, the Forestry Act 1946 did not require that a licence be obtained for the construction of a forest road. Similarly, planning permission was not required under the original version of section 4 of the Planning and Development Act, 2000 (the “2000 Act”).
- Therefore, as of 21 January 2002, when s.4 of the 2000 Act commenced, neither a forestry license nor planning permission were required for the construction of a forest road, irrespective of whether or not it connected to a public road.
- s.17 of the Environment (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2011 (the “2011 Act”) commenced on 21 September 2011, amended section 4 of the planning and Development Act and accordingly the position on that date was as follows:
• There was no obligation to obtain a forestry license for forest road works.
• There was no obligation to obtain planning permission in respect of internal forest roads that did not provide access to a public road.
• There was a requirement to obtain planning permission for forest roads, or parts of forest roads, where those forest roads connected to the public road.
25. The final legislative change relevant to this Request was the introduction of the Forestry Act 2014, which represents the current legal position, and requires that a forestry licence be obtained in respect of all forest road works. This act commenced on 24 May 2017.
26. Amendments were made to the 2000 Act to ensure that all forestry related activities, including the construction and maintenance of forest roads, were removed from the scope of the 2000 Act, save for roads that provided for access to a national road within the meaning of the Roads Act 1993 (s.4(1)(ai), substituted by the Planning and Development (Amendment) Act 2018). Therefore, the requirement to obtain development consent for a forest road over the last few years can be summarised as follows:
o Before 21 September 2011, there was no obligation to obtain either a forest license or planning permission in respect of forest road works, including forest roads providing access to a public road
o Before 24 May 2017, there was a requirement to obtain planning permission in respect of forest roads that provided access to a public road or in respect of forest roads that required an Appropriate Assessment or Environmental Impact Assessment.
o After 24 May 2017, there was a requirement to obtain a forestry license in respect of the construction of a forest road, and planning permission in respect of the provision of access to a national primary road. Recognising that the construction of forest roads is typically a straightforward and simple installation, where a formal consent was not required to be obtained
27. Coillte’s position is that the forest roads in question were constructed before 21 September 2011, therefore there was no obligation to obtain either a forestry licence or planning permission in respect of the relevant works. Coillte make direct reference to the Commissioner’s decision in OCE-155264-B2P6X3 which sated that Coillte should provide “specific images, metadata or analytical methods to determine the construction timeline ” and that “reliance on verbal accounts from external contractors is problematic and incapable of being substantiated ”. Coillte’s position is that this type of evidence is unnecessary in the circumstances due to the provisions of the s.7 of the 2000 Act, which requires that a planning authority maintain a planning register of all land within its functional area to include “(a) particulars of any application made to it under this Act for permission for development, for retention of development, or substitute consent, or for outline permission for development (including the name and address of the applicant, the date of receipt of the application and brief particulars of the development or retention forming the subject of the application )”
28. Coillte states that the result of this section is that if the roads were constructed after 21 September 2011, particulars of the planning application would be maintained (in perpetuity) on the register by the relevant Planning Authorities (Roscommon and Sligo County Councils) – as required by s.7 of the 2000 Act. The fact that this is not the case, according to Coillte, is evidence that the roads were constructed after September 2011.
29. In relation to the question of potential records arising under retention planning permission, which was considered as directly relevant to the request (see comments at paragraph 25 OCE-155264-B2P6X3 ) Coillte stated that in respect of CN95595, located in County Roscommon, a search of the Map Based Planning register reveals that the only planning consents relate to the retention application previously identified by the Commissioner in the course of their decision (planning reference number 15245). This retention application related to modifications, which were carried out to the site entrance to improve sight lines in 2015. Retention permission was granted on 13 July 2016 and Coillte stated as following;
“Accordingly, in respect of forest road RN09R0003 (CN95595), the absence of any other planning particulars on the Roscommon Planning Register is prima facie evidence that the road was constructed prior to the requirement to obtain planning permission. As noted by the Commissioner in its decision at paragraph 28, the very fact of retention permission being sought supports the position that the road was constructed before September 2011. A review of the map-based planning register of Roscommon County Council in respect of RN04R1027 (CN95186) similarly shows that no planning applications, whether prospective or retention, were sought or granted in respect of this forest road entry. Accordingly, this likewise is evidence that the entrance was constructed, at least insofar as it conjoined the national road, prior to the requirement to obtain planning permission .
With regards CN95595 (County Roscommon), a search of the Map Based Planning register reveals that the only planning consents relate to the retention application from July 2016 previously identified by the Commissioner in the course of their decision (Planning Reference Number 15245). Coillte states that in respect of forest road RN09R0003 (CN95595), the absence of any other planning particulars on the Roscommon Planning Register is evidence that the road was constructed prior to the requirement to obtain planning permission .
With regards RN04R1027 (CN95186) - a review of the map-based planning register of Roscommon County Council in respect of similarly shows that no planning applications, whether prospective or retention, were sought or granted in respect of this forest road entry. Accordingly, this likewise is evidence that the entrance was constructed, at least insofar as it conjoined the national road, prior to the requirement to obtain planning permission .
Finally, Sligo County Council also maintain a map of their planning register. When this is examined at the location of SO06R1035 (CN94714), it also shows that no planning applications, whether prospective or retention, have been made for this entrance. Accordingly, as with RN09R0003 and RN04R1027, the planning register maintained by Sligo County Council constitutes prima facie evidence that SO06R1035, that the entrance from the main road, was built before 21 September 2011 .”
30. Coillte concludes this is why no planning applications or forestry licence applications exist in relation to this appeal (examples of which it refers to as a “formal” records). Based on the above explanation, I am satisfied with Coillte’s explanation as to its conclusion that the construction of the three roads at issue in this appeal, began prior to 21 September 2011, and that the searches conducted on the relevant planning registers are satisfactory.
31. I note the appellant’s position that there is “publicly available evidence to demonstrate that one section of road had not been constructed as of April 2011 .” Addressing this particular point, Coillte state that the appellant has neither identified the relevant road, nor produced this evidence in relation to the same. Coillte also states that the appellant has not confirmed whether the portion of the road that is said to have not been constructed in April 2011 represented the final portion of the road construction, if it included any entry to a public road or if it was purely an internal forest road. Coillte states that for these reasons “this unsubstantiated statement is of limited relevance to this decision”. However, Coillte state that assuming the appellant’s claim is correct, “and further, assuming that the portion of the road alleged to be under construction on or after April 2011 was in fact the entry point to the public road, this is in fact supportive of Coillte’s position that the roads were constructed before the obligation to obtain planning permission. As noted above, the date on which planning permission would have been required for forest road entrances from public roads is 21 September 2011. Therefore, if part of the forest road was constructed in April 2011, this indicates, albeit anecdotally, that works had commenced prior to 21 September 2011 .”
32. Coillte has also set out information regarding searches in relation to what it calls its “informal records” – these are “all other documents, such as, for example, internal correspondence in respect of the road construction ”. It explains that, owing to the nature of the construction of forest roads prior to the obligation to obtain formal consent, extensive informal records would not generally have been produced in respect of such development, and would be unlikely to have been retained in Coillte’s document management system, nor survived the migration to the new system.
33. Coillte state that in order to confirm this position and noting the updates to Coillte’s internal file management system which hindered the ability to efficiently review historic records that may have been created over 15 years ago, additional searches were undertaken. These revealed three records that confirmed Coillte’s understanding as to the date of the construction of the roads. While the decision maker stated that they do not consider that these records fall within the scope of the request, in that they do not relate to design, construction or development consent, they decision maker decided to provide them to the appellant for information purposes.
34. Coillte set out the following search detail in relation to the requested information. Firstly, the primary search was performed using the following key terms: “RN09R0003 ,” “RN04R1027 ,” and “SO06R1035 .” Coillte set out that these terms correspond to road numbers adopted since 2016 as part of a system upgrade that introduced a new classification format for the road network. Coillte states that this system overhaul resulted in the creation of an entirely new classification layer, severing any direct link to previous road numbers. Coillte further stated that using thee search methods, it was unable to locate any information relating to the earlier classifications. Further, Coillte stated that it then made enquiries though direct engagement with local teams – consisting of telephone conversations with staff and contractors who may have been involved in the relevant projects to determine if any records or information was held by them. These additional staff conducted searches of local file drives, cloud-based storage systems, and Office 365 archives, including email correspondence. Despite these efforts, no records within the scope of the request were identified.
35. In addition to the foregoing searches, Coillte states it also examined historical aerial imagery from publicly available datasets which revealed that roads corresponding to the new road numbers were each present/visible in aerial imagery dated 2013. It stated however, that imagery from early 2010 did not show the existence of these roads and entrances. Engagement between Coillte staff and local external contractors, confirmed from memory and local site knowledge that construction of the roads and entrances in question started during the summer of 2010, which is supported by the legal position and lack of any formal records on the County Council Planning Registers.
36. Coillte states that the subject matter expert found that the original road numbers specified in the request are no longer available or retrievable - due to system changes over time and Coillte’s data retention limits. As previously mentioned, no metadata referencing the road number, property or townland was found. To address this limitation, the subject matter expert undertook a final review using a broader approach. The search using property names did not yield any information. No metadata referencing the road number, property or townland was found. Following a broader search which entailed a visual trawl of a document library, a file that appeared relevant was examined and it contained references to the townlands in question. Some information was located which, as noted above, did not in Coillte’s view fall within the scope of the appellant’s request.
37. Coillte set out its document retention policy in respect of non-essential soft copy files. In 2021 all departments in Coillte including operational processes migrated to SharePoint Online (SPOL). As part of the data migration, individual teams identified files suitable for deletion. The deletion of identified documents and files was completed in 2022. In 2021, a maximum 5-year retention period was implemented and all emails older than 5 years are automatically deleted. Microsoft exchange is programmed to automatically delete emails, 5 years after the email is generated, on employees’ outlook accounts without seeking approval.
38. Further, Coillte stated that the Forestry Information Systems, which held information in relation to road management activities was decommissioned and is no longer used or accessible by Coillte staff members. The new system solutions in place to manage this type of data includes Coillte’s Land Resource Management and Business Resource Manager (BRM).
39. I do not consider it ideal that Coillte cannot conclusively confirm if the roads, the subject matter of this request, were constructed prior to September 2011. However, on the balance of probability, I am satisfied based on the information provided by Coillte that the construction of the roads and entrances in question started during the summer of 2010 and as such predated September 2011. Therefore, I am satisfied that “formal records ” are unlikely to exist. I have reached this conclusion based on a consideration of the regulatory requirement landscape, the result of the review of aerial imagery and the engagement between Coillte staff and local external contractors. I have also considered Coillte’s file management system and data retention policy. Further I have also taken note of the passage of time involved in relation to this subject matter of this appeal.
40. It is important to note that where a public authority refuses a request for records under article 7 (5) pf 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 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. The passage of time is also relevant factor in such appeals. It is also important to note that the Commissioner does not generally expect public authorities to carry out extensive or indefinite general searches for records simply because an applicant asserts that more records should or might exist, or rejects a public authorises explanation of why a record does not exist. The test set out in article 7(5) of the AIE Regulations is whether the public authority has taken all reasonable steps to locate the information sought.
41. 7 (5) of the AIE Regulations does not require a forensic trawling exercise to be conducted by public authorities, rather a test of reasonableness and an adequate search exercise should be performed.
42. I note the appellant has raised a number of queries in his appeal to this Office, and I have considered these queries, which include his contention that Coillte’s decision has focussed heavily on the “development consent aspect without addressing the design and construction aspects of the request ”. Having considered Coillte’s internal review decision, I am persuaded that it has provided sufficient reasons to the appellant that the requested environmental information is not held by them – and if information was held by it in relation to the design or construction aspects of the request, it likely would have shown up on in the searches conducted. Given the nature of the request in this case, and the considerable level of detail Coillte has given in explanation as to why no relevant information is held by it, I am satisfied by the level of searches conducted by Coillte.
43. It is evident that Coillte has carried out detailed searches in processing the appellant’s request and has also provided information in respect of the regulatory requirements relevant to the subject matter of the appeal, its file management and data retention policy. Accordingly, I am satisfied that the searches carried out by Coillte are reasonable within the meaning of the AIE Regulations.
44. In light of the above, I affirm Coillte’s decision to refuse the appellant’s request on the basis of article 7(5) of the AIE Regulations. It is open to the appellant to submit a fresh request beyond the scope of his original request should he wish to do so.
45. Having carried out a review under article 12(5) of the AIE Regulations, on behalf of the Commissioner for Environmental Information, I hereby affirm the decision of Coillte.
46. 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