Michael and Mary Feeney and the Galway City Tribune

The Press Ombudsman has decided to uphold a complaint from Michael and Mary Feeney about an article published in the Galway City Tribune on 24 January 2025. The article, headlined “Neighbours appeal against houses plans in place of Claddagh cottage”, stated that the complainants, who are named, have challenged a Galway City Council decision to allow planning permission for the demolition of a house and sheds and the building of two new houses on the site. The article stated that they have taken the case to the planning appeals board and that An Bord Pleanála is due to make its decision in May.

According to the complainants, the article breached Principle 1 (Truth and Accuracy) of the Press Council’s Code of Practice because, they said, they had not lodged such an appeal. They said they had submitted an “observation” but when informed by An Bord Pleanála that it was regarded as an “invalid appeal”, they had decided against proceeding further.

The complainants received two pieces of correspondence from An Bord Pleanála. The first, dated 10 January 2025, stated that it had received a letter “in which you intended to make an appeal” under planning legislation, but that since they had not sent the appropriate fee it was regarded as invalid. The second, sent on 13 March 2025, was in response to an email from them, and included the statement that “I can understand the confusion on your side as you have stated you never intended to submit an appeal, but you wanted to submit an observation”. This, the Board explained, was only possible if there was a current live appeal, which was not the case.

The complainants asked the publication to publish a correction in its local edition.

The publication stated that An Bord Pleanála’s website listed the case as a planning appeal which had been lodged on 6 January 2025 with the complainants’ names cited. It acknowledged that at the time the publication was writing to the Press Ombudsman in response to the complaint, An Bord Pleanála’s website referred to an “invalid appeal”.

The publication noted that after receiving the complaint, it had contacted An Bord Pleanála, which stated in its response on 3 March 2025 that the complainants had submitted an appeal on 6 January 2025 but that it had been deemed invalid as “the fee for lodging such an appeal was incorrect”. The publication asserted that its report that the couple had lodged an appeal was therefore accurate. It acknowledged that it could not confirm whether or not the appeal was listed as invalid at the time of reporting but said this was irrelevant.

Decision

The Galway City Tribune stated in its article published on 24 January 2025 that Michael and Mary Feeney had appealed a planning decision about which An Bord Pleanála will make its decision by May 13, 2025. The publication, however, accepts that An Bord Pleanála’s website referred to the complainants’ submission as an “invalid appeal”.

The Press Ombudsman finds that a certain amount of confusion surrounds the submission made by the complainants on 6 January 2025. The publication insists that the complainants submitted what they intended to be an appeal. The complainants assert this was never their intention. It is not for the Press Ombudsman to try to reach a determination in this regard. It is a fact, however, that the complainants were informed just days later, on 10 January 2025, that their submission was regarded as an invalid appeal, and it is also a fact that they did not proceed to attempt to lodge a valid one.

The publication admits that it is unable to determine whether the listing on An Bord Pleanála’s website included the word “invalid” at the time of its reporting, on 24 January 2025. This means that it accepts that it is possible that it proceeded with the story despite evidence that the submission made by the complainants was not being considered as a live appeal, thus rendering the story inaccurate.

The publication’s argument that it was accurate in stating that an appeal was made by Mr and Mrs Feeney is untenable. An appeal has consequences. The article states that the City Council’s decision to grant planning permission “is being challenged” by the complainants and that “the case has been taken to the planning appeals board” by them, and that An Bord Pleanála is to make a decision in May. None of this will happen in relation to the submission made by Mr and Mrs Feeney.

Regardless of what An Bord Pleanála’s website stated at time of reporting, as soon as the publication was made aware by the complainants that they had not appealed the planning decision – on 29 January 2025 – the Press Ombudsman finds that the publication should have acknowledged that it had published an inaccurate statement and corrected it in the local edition of its publication as requested by them.

The Press Ombudsman finds that the publication breached Principle 1 of the Code of Practice.