Decision
Ms X and Westmeath County Council
From Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC)
Case number: OIC-155946-W1R5M2
Published on
From Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC)
Case number: OIC-155946-W1R5M2
Published on
Whether the Council was justified in refusing access, under section 15(1)(c) of the FOI Act, to records of public consultations on the Galway to Athlone Greenway Project, on the grounds that processing the request would cause a substantial and unreasonable interference with or disruption of the work of the Council
21 March 2025
In a request dated 4 September 2024, the applicant sought access to spreadsheets containing responses to the first, second, and third stage of public consultations on the Galway to Athlone Greenway Project. She also requested all other records and submissions not recorded on the spreadsheets for all three consultations.
On 2 October 2024, the Council refused the applicant’s request under section 15(1)(c) of the FOI Act as it concluded that processing the request would cause disruption to the work of the functional area concerned. On 7 October 2024, the applicant requested an internal review of the Council’s decision. The applicant stated that she was aware that at least one spreadsheet on the second public consultation exists from a previous FOI request. She said it stands to reason that spreadsheets also exist for the first and third public consultations. The applicant disputed the Council’s estimate of 68 hours to process her request. On 30 October 2024, the Council affirmed its original decision. It said that it never disputed the existence of the requested records, but that it would take an unreasonable amount of time to redact the large quantities of third-party personal information contained in the records. On 29 January 2025, the applicant applied to this Office for a review of the Council’s decision.
I have now completed my review in accordance with section 22(2) of the FOI Act. In carrying out my review, I have had regard to the correspondence outlined above as well as the submissions made by the Council. I have decided to conclude this review by way of a formal, binding decision.
This review is concerned solely with whether the Council was justified, under section 15(1)(c) of the Act, in refusing the applicant’s request dated 4 September 2024.
Section 15(1)(c) provides for the refusal of a request where the FOI body considers that granting the request would, by reason of the number or nature of the records concerned or the nature of the information concerned, require the retrieval and examination of such number of records or an examination of such kind of records concerned as to cause a substantial and unreasonable interference with, or disruption of, work of the body (including disruption of work in a particular functional area).
However, section 15(4) provides that a request cannot be refused under section 15(1)(c) unless the body has first assisted, or offered to assist, the requester in amending the request so that it no longer falls to be refused under that section. Accordingly, before I consider whether the Council was justified in refusing the request under section 15(1)(c), I must first consider whether it complied with the provisions of section 15(4) before doing so.
The FOI Act is silent on the precise nature or level of the assistance to be offered under section 15(4). This Office takes the view that before a body can refuse a request under section 15(1)(c), the body must first have provided reasonable assistance to the requester in amending the request, or have offered to provide assistance in cases where the requester is not willing to amend the original request, in order to comply with the requirements of section 15(4). On the question of what constitutes reasonable assistance, this Office considers that the level or nature of the assistance to be provided can vary significantly from case to case and will depend on the particular facts and circumstances of the case. It will often also depend on the willingness of the parties to engage in meaningful discussion on what might be acceptable in the circumstances.
When requesting submissions from the Council in this case, the Investigating Officer drew its attention to section 15(4) of the Act and queried whether it had assisted or offered to assist the applicant in amending her request so that it no longer fell to be refused under section 15(1)(c).
The Council’s submissions
In its submissions to this Office, the Council stated that it did not assist nor offer to assist the applicant with a view to amending this request in order to avoid the conditions of the section 15(1)(c) exemption. The Council said that it did not contact the applicant between the date of her original request (4 September 2024) and the date of its original decision (2 October 2024) to put her on notice that her request would be deemed voluminous and would need to be refined.
The Council also raised some additional points in its submissions. It said that it considers granting the applicant’s FOI request to be contrary to the public interest because the release of individual submissions from the public consultation process would be detrimental to the effectiveness of future public consultation processes or other similar schemes. The Council said that this would discourage the public from actively participating in a purposeful way when making submissions that feed into the deliberation process. Further to this, the Council stated that releasing the requested records would fail to protect the rights of individuals to communicate in confidence with public bodies without fear of disclosure in relation to personal or sensitive information and prevent a public body from making its decision without undue intrusion. The Council said that a summary of the information received from individuals in the form of submissions as part of the organised public consultation process was compiled and made publicly available in the public consultation report on the Project website.
The Council added that the applicant’s request made on 4 September 2024 is the same as a previous request she made in which she was asked to refine the scope of what she was seeking then. The Council said that while it accepts that it did not assist the applicant in refining her present request, it is of the opinion that the applicant was aware that the Council was likely to refuse the new request based on the outcome of her previous request. The Council added that the timeframe of 68 hours it estimated to grant the applicant’s request is based on reviewing in excess of 13,000 submissions it received for the three public consultations.
While I note the Council’s comments that the applicant was asked to refine the scope of a previous request for similar records and its view that the applicant was aware that the Council was likely to refuse the new request based on the outcome of her previous request, this review relates solely to the applicant’s FOI request dated 4 September 2024. The fact that the Council may have offered to assist the applicant in regard to her previous request, does not relieve the Council of its obligation to comply with section 15(4) in this case.
Having considered the Council’s submissions, I find that it did not comply with section 15(4) of the FOI Act before refusing the applicant’s request under section 15(1)(c). In the circumstances, I am satisfied that the most appropriate course of action is to annul the decision of the Council and to direct it to undertake a fresh consideration of the request.
If the Council remains of the view that the request is voluminous, it must first comply with section 15(4) if it is to once again consider refusal of the request under section 15(1)(c). Given the Council’s estimate of the work involved in processing the applicant’s request as it stands, I would encourage both parties to engage constructively with each other on the scope of the request to see if a compromise can be reached. If the applicant is not satisfied with the new decision made by the Council, the usual rights of review will apply.
Finally, in regard to the Council’s comments that the release of individual submissions from the public consultation process would be detrimental to the effectiveness of future public consultation processes, it is a matter for the Council, in the first instance, to make a decision on access to the records sought having regard to the various provisions contained within the FOI Act. Given my findings in regard to section 15(4), it is not necessary for me to consider any such arguments as part of this review.
Having carried out a review under section 22(2) of the FOI Act, I hereby annul the Council’s decision to refuse the applicant’s request under section 15(1)(c) of the FOI Act on the basis that it did not first comply with the provisions of section 15(4) of the Act. I direct the Council to conduct a fresh decision-making process on the applicant’s request.
Section 24 of the FOI Act sets out detailed provisions for an appeal to the High Court by a party to a review, or any other person affected by the decision. In summary, such an appeal, normally on a point of law, must be initiated not later than four weeks after notice of the decision was given to the person bringing the appeal.
Richard Crowley
Investigator