The Press Ombudsman has decided not to uphold a man’s complaint that the Kerryman breached Principle 5 (Privacy) of the Code of Practice in an article published in October 2025.
The Complaint
The article is a news report on the rejection by An Coimisiún Pleanála of a planning appeal lodged by the man’s mother, who gave her son permission to make the complaint to the Press Ombudsman on her behalf.
The woman had appealed a decision by Kerry County Council to refuse her request for permission to retain a log cabin she had built on her land in a rural part of the county. The woman lived in the cabin. The report is about the decision of the planning authority to reject her appeal, and by way of introduction it refers to the decision of the County Council and a reference to the fact that a local TD supported the woman’s request for retention.
The complainant stated that the publication had published “sensitive personal information” relating to his mother and other family members and that this exceeded any public interest requirement. He said that the publication of the information was “unnecessary, intrusive and disproportionate.”
In correspondence with the publication in advance of making his complaint, he also said that his mother’s safety had been put at risk by the publication, and that safety concerns “can override ‘public interest’…”
He also said the article was misleading in that it implied that he had contributed to it when in fact he had not.
The Response from the Publication
The publication apologised for any distress caused to the woman. It said the Oireachtas had decided that the planning process was public. It said it was part of the job of a newspaper to report on its proceedings, and noted that An Coimisiún Pleanála’s website advises those making appeal submissions that they should give “careful consideration” to disclosing personal information given the public nature of the process.
It noted that Principle 5 of the Code of Practice states that the right to privacy should not prevent publication of matters or public record. It denied implying that the woman’s son had spoken to the publication, and said the article clearly referred to him only with reference to the appeal document he had submitted.
The publication said there was a particular public interest in the subject matter of the article because it detailed the difficulty of getting planning permission for an “alternative style of home” even in the particular circumstances in which the man’s mother found herself, and with the support of a local TD. It noted that the article had quoted the point made by the complainant that log cabins may be the only viable option for many people due to the housing crisis.
The publication noted that it had apologised for any distress the article had caused, and had subsequently offered as a gesture of good will to remove the online article. It had done so.
The complainant accepted the offer to remove the article but said that “the damage was done at this point”, and that his complaint was therefore not resolved.
The Decision
The Press Ombudsman finds that the article is a report on public proceedings and that the press has a responsibility as well as a right to report on such proceedings in the public interest. She finds that it is clear that the report is quoting from the complainant’s submission and that there is no implication that he spoke to the publication.
She accepts the publication’s contextual explanation of the particular public interest issues raised by this case, and the reasons it quoted from the complainant’s planning appeal submission in some detail.
She includes in this details about his mother’s circumstances, the publication of which, the complainant asserts, have given rise to safety concerns. She notes the publication’s reference to the fact that An Coimisiún Pleanála warn those making submissions to bear in mind that the process is a public one. However, she can appreciate why the complainant felt it necessary to include the details in his submission. They were relevant to an aspect of the appeal which was addressed in the rejection of the appeal.
The Press Ombudsman notes the publication’s apology for distress caused to the complainant’s mother, and its removal of the online article. She finds that there is no breach of Principle 5.