The Press Ombudsman has decided not to uphold a complaint from a couple about an article published in Waterford Live in January 2026. The article is a report on a planning issue. The couple stated that it breached Principle 3 (Fair procedures and honesty), Principle 4 (Respect for Rights) and Principle 5 (Privacy).
The Article
The article is a news report. It states that an appeal was lodged with An Coimisiún Pleanála against a decision by the local council to allow a housing development to be built. It describes the scale of the proposed development, and states that the couple had, along with a number of others, objected to the granting of planning permission. It notes that the Council nevertheless granted permission, subject to conditions. It notes that the couple subsequently lodged an appeal, and that the development was on hold pending a decision from the planning commission.
The Complaint
The couple said that “misleading quotations and information” had been published. They said the publication had allowed them to become a target for those opposed to their appeal, and had quoted them in such a way as to imply that they were “against any building works”. They said it had published personal information about their family and family home. They said it had published “incorrect” information, and had published information from many submissions they had made “over the years” but nothing from their appeal.
Under Principle 3, they stated that they felt that information had been obtained through misrepresentation. Under Principle 4, they said the publication had not checked facts before publishing the article. They quoted Principle 5 in relation to the requirement that “the private and family life, home and correspondence of everyone must be respected.”
The Response
The publication said the article was fair and accurate and that its publication was in the public interest.
The publication said all of the information in the article came from the couple’s submission to the Council last year, and not from multiple submissions, and it commented that the couple’s submission to the Council had not been marked as confidential or private.
The publication stated in relation to Principle 3, that all of the information published had come from “publicly available planning documents” published by the local council and that no other enquiries were made. In relation to Principle 4 it stated that the story published had been “fair and accurate and entirely based on facts and information contained in publicly available documents.” It provided links to the submission made to the local council’s planning department by the couple, and stated that all of the information in the story originated from this.
In response to the complaint under Principle 5, the publication stated that the entitlement to privacy cited by the couple does not extend to publicly available submissions made as part of the planning process. It noted that certain identifying details such as phone numbers and emails were redacted from the publicly available documents.
Decision
The Press Ombudsman has reviewed the planning submission made by the couple upon which this report is based. She finds that the article is a fair and accurate report of a public planning process, that its publication is in the public interest and that as such it is protected by the Code of Practice. She does not find that any of the Principles of the Code were breached as asserted.
10th April 2026