Resolution
Statement 01395-22 – Wilshaws of Bexton Limited v Macclesfield Express
Summary
of Complaint
1. Wilshaws
of Bexton Limited complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation
that the Macclesfield Express breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code
of Practice in an article headlined “Protest leads to a wedding ban for venue”,
published on 29th December 2021.
2. The
article, which appeared on page 2 of the newspaper, reported that the “owners
of [Lyme Breeze] have been told it cannot be used for weddings – for now at
least – in the face of large objections from nearby residents.” It said that a
report by council planners found the main issue with the owner’s application
for a “’certificate of lawful existing use’ – permission to use the premises
for functions that also included christenings, wakes and conferences – was
demonstrating the continuous use of the premise’s as “a restaurant with
ancillary functions and events venue”, concluding that the owner’s submission
“lack[ed] evidence” to demonstrate this. The article then stated that
“functions cannot take place now unless a full planning application is
submitted and approved” and included the following statement by the individual
described as “acting as agent for the owners”: “Whilst it is clear that the
holding of functions such as parties, weddings, christenings, and meetings/conferences
etc is ancillary to the main use of the site, these uses are in any event
established and lawful by virtue of the fact that they have been ongoing for a
continuous period of in excess of 10 years”. The article included a number of
the objections raised by residents.
3. The
complainant, the owner and operator of Lyme Breeze, said that the article was
inaccurate, in breach of Clause 1 (Accuracy). The complainant denied that Lyme
Breeze had been “banned” by the council from hosting weddings. The complainant
also denied that it had been instructed by the council that functions could not
take place at the venue, without the submission and approval of a full planning
application.
4. In
addition, the complainant said that the article was inaccurate to report that
there were “large objections” to the application, and to include the comments
submitted by residents. The complainant said that the inclusion of these
comments, and their prominence, sensationalised events.
5. The
complainant also expressed concern that it had not been provided with an
opportunity to respond to the claims made prior to the article’s publication.
The comments included within the article from the “agent” were taken from the
report’s submission to the council; this representative had not been approached
for further comment prior to the article’s publication.
6. The
publication maintained that its coverage was accurate. It said that while the
council had confirmed that the venue held a licence to host Marriage and Civil
Partnership ceremonies, this was separate from permission to host celebrations,
functions and events.
Relevant
Code Provisions
Clause 1
(Accuracy)
i) The
Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted
information or images, including headlines not supported by the text.
ii) A
significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distortion must be corrected,
promptly and with due prominence, and — where appropriate — an apology
published. In cases involving IPSO, due prominence should be as required by the
regulator.
iii) A
fair opportunity to reply to significant inaccuracies should be given, when
reasonably called for.
iv) The
Press, while free to editorialise and campaign, must distinguish clearly
between comment, conjecture and fact.
Mediated
Outcome
7. The
complaint was not resolved through direct correspondence between the parties.
IPSO therefore began an investigation into the matter.
8.
During IPSO’s investigation the complainant said that the following actions
would resolve the matter to its satisfaction: the removal of the article from a
third party news distribution website, and the publication of an apology and
correction.
9. The publication removed the article from the
third party news distribution website and published the following item in its
Corrections and Clarifications column, which appeared on page 2:
“Lyme
Breeze - An Apology
Our
article 'Protest leads to a wedding ban for venue', published on 29 December
2021, incorrectly reported that as part of a planning process the owners of
Lyme Breeze, Adlington, Macclesfield had been told it could not be used for
weddings. Our article also stated that functions could not take place until a
full planning application was submitted and approved which was also incorrect.
We are happy to clarify that no ban had been imposed, and apologise to the
owners and customers of Lyme Breeze for any distress caused.”
10. As the complaint was successfully mediated,
the Complaints Committee did not make a determination as to whether there had
been any breach of the Code.
Date
complaint received: 31/01/2022
Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 18/05/2022
Back to ruling listing