Decision of the Complaints Committee 03186-14 Tanswell
v Frome Standard
Summary of
complaint
1. Derek Tanswell complained to the Independent Press
Standards Organisation that The Frome Standard breached Clause 1 (Accuracy),
Clause 2 (Opportunity to reply), Clause 3 (Privacy), Clause 4 (Harassment),
Clause 6 (Children), Clause 12 (Discrimination) and Clause 13 (Financial
Journalism) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined
“Councillor flouts laws he serves to uphold”, published on 23 October 2014, and
an article headlined “Family facing anxious wait after flouting planning laws
over caravan”, published on 8 January 2015.
2. The articles reported that the complainant, a Frome
councillor who served on Mendip’s planning committee, had “flouted” planning
laws after he moved a static caravan on to a field in Chapmanslade that he
owned with his partner, Sharon Snook. The articles also reported that the
couple had installed a septic tank and built a wall at the access to the site,
and said that a retrospective planning application had been submitted by Ms Snook.
The earlier article reported that this application was to be heard by
mid-December. The later article reported that the complainant’s family would
have to “wait a little longer to get a decision”, after the decision on the
application had been deferred, pending further investigation in to the
agricultural officer’s report, and its claim that the alpacas Ms Snook intended
to rear required 24-hour monitoring.
3. The complainant accepted that a caravan had been moved
onto the site, that a septic tank had been installed, or that a wall had been
constructed, but denied responsibility for these actions; he said he did not
own the land, that he did not undertake the above actions, and therefore denied
that he had “flouted planning laws”. He said that he lived at a different
address, where he pays his council tax and runs his business, but confirmed
that he works part-time at the Chapmanslade site. He said that he visits the
site to see his partner and to see his children to bed, and that he sometimes
leaves his van overnight, and gets a lift or cycles home. He said he did not
visit the site every day, but confirmed that he was at the site when the static
caravan arrived, as he had been contracted to connect up the water. He
confirmed that he had acted as a planning agent on previous planning
applications in relation to the land, but denied that this meant that he owns
the land, or that the allegations made in the article were accurate. The
complainant contended that the later article was inaccurate as the council’s
agricultural consultant had not said that the alpacas needed monitoring 24 hour
hours a day, as reported, but had said that alpacas required a presence on the
site.
4. The newspaper telephoned the complainant on 17 October
and 21 October, but did not receive a response; the reporter subsequently
texted the complainant and there was an exchange of messages on 21 October, in
which the newspaper put the claim that a retrospective planning application had
been submitted to the complainant, who responded by denying that there was a
retrospective planning application. He provided the journalist with the contact
details of “[his] wife’s planning consultant”, and said that the consultant
would verify his claims that no planning permission was required, and that
there had been no breach of any regulations. The newspaper noted that during
the exchange, the complainant had not denied owning the land.
5. The planning consultant contacted the newspaper on the
day the first article was published and informed it that he had been instructed
by his clients “Mr D. Tanswell & Ms S. Snook in respect of the
[Chapmanslade] site”. He explained that planning permission was granted for the
erection of an agricultural building on the land in June 2014, and that during the
construction of this building, “the siting of the mobile home and the
installation of a septic tank is a ‘permitted development’ and does not require
express planning permission”.
6. The complainant provided IPSO with the “Planning
Contravention Notice” (PCN) which had been served on Ms Snook. The PCN stated
that the suspected breach of planning control related to the “unauthorised use
of agricultural land for the stationing and residential use of a static
caravan”. The complainant provided the response to the PCN from the planning
consultant, which said that the consultant had been “instructed by Ms Snook and
her partner Mr Derek Tanswell”. The agent denied that there had been a breach
of planning regulations, and provided a defence to the siting of the static
caravan. In addition, it said that “we are also instructed to prepare and
submit an application for the retention of the mobile home for a temporary
period of 3 years in connection with the establishment of an alpaca breeding
enterprise”. The complainant noted that the response to the PCN made clear that
Ms Snook was the owner and occupier of the land.
7. An appraisal of the planning application prepared by
an agricultural consultancy stated that Ms Snook would be assisted in
developing a viable agricultural holding “on a part-time basis by her partner,
Mr Derek Tanswell”, and went on to state that “together, Ms Snook and Mr
Tanswell believe they have the attributes necessary to establish and manage a
successful business at the site”. In addition, the appraisal stated that “there
must be someone on site at most times to ensure the proper functioning of the
[alpaca] enterprise”, and that “it is neither responsible not practical to
establish an alpaca breeding unit without living on site to care for the stock”.
8. The newspaper said that it approached Wiltshire
Council, after it had been contacted about the caravan by neighbours of the
complainant. The council provided an official comment a few days before the
story was published, in which it said that a static mobile home had been
stationed on the site, without planning permission, in August. The council went
on to say that a retrospective planning application for the siting of a mobile
home had been received after the council served a requisition for information
as a prelude to take formal enforcement action. A report to the Western Area
Planning Committee on the proposal to site a mobile home on the site in
question stated that “the application is for the (partially retrospective)
siting of a mobile home ... It is partially retrospective in that the mobile
home is already on site and occupied”.
9. The newspaper provided statements from a number
of the complainant’s neighbours who said that he had lived in the mobile home
since August 2014, that he referred to the land as “my land”, that he had acted
for Ms Snook in planning applications in relation to the land and that he had
been seen working on the land.
10. The newspaper offered to publish a clarification
making clear that the complainant does not own the land in question, but that
it is, in fact, in Ms Snook’s name.
Relevant Code Provisions
11. Clause 1 (Accuracy)
i) The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate,
misleading or distorted information, including pictures.
ii) A significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or
distortion once recognised must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence,
and - where appropriate - an apology published. In cases involving the
Regulator, prominence should be agreed with the Regulator in advance.
iii) The Press, whilst free to be partisan, must
distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact.
Clause 2 (Opportunity to reply)
i) A fair opportunity for reply to inaccuracies must be
given when reasonably called for.
Clause 3 (Privacy)
i) Everyone is entitled to respect for his or her private
and family life, home, health and correspondence, including digital
communications.
ii) Editors will be expected to justify intrusions into
any individual's private life without consent. Account will be taken of the
complainant's own public disclosures of information.
Clause 4 (Harassment)
i) Journalists must not engage in intimidation,
harassment or persistent pursuit.
ii) They must not persist in questioning, telephoning,
pursuing or photographing individuals once asked to desist; nor remain on their
property when asked to leave and must not follow them. If requested, they must
identify themselves and whom they represent.
iii) Editors must ensure these principles are observed by
those working for them and take care not to use non-compliant material from
other sources.
Clause 6 (Children)
i) Young people should be free to complete their time at
school without unnecessary intrusion.
ii) A child under 16 must not be interviewed or
photographed on issues involving their own or another child's welfare unless a
custodial parent or similarly responsible adult consents.
iii) Pupils must not be approached or photographed at
school without the permission of the school authorities.
iv) Minors must not be paid for material involving
children's welfare, nor parents or guardians for material about their children
or wards, unless it is clearly in the child's interest.
v) Editors must not use the fame, notoriety or position
of a parent or guardian as sole justification for publishing details of a
child's private life.
Clause 12 (Discrimination)
i) The press must avoid prejudicial or pejorative
reference to an individual's race, colour, religion, gender, sexual orientation
or to any physical or mental illness or disability.
ii) Details of an individual's race, colour, religion,
sexual orientation, physical or mental illness or disability must be avoided
unless genuinely relevant to the story.
Clause 13 (Financial Journalism)
i) Even where the law does not prohibit it, journalists
must not use for their own profit financial information they receive in advance
of its general publication, nor should they pass such information to others.
ii) They must not write about shares or securities in
whose performance they know that they or their close families have a
significant financial interest without disclosing the interest to the editor or
financial editor.
iii) They must not buy or sell, either directly or
through nominees or agents, shares or securities about which they have written
recently or about which they intend to write in the near future.
Findings of the Committee
12. The Committee acknowledged the complainant’s
contention that the articles were inaccurate because he did not own the land in
question, or live in the static caravan, and that it was inaccurate to allege
that he had “flouted planning law”. The Committee noted that the complainant’s
partner, and their children, lived in the static caravan; a planning consultant
had been instructed to respond to the PCN by both the complainant and his
partner; in his responses to the newspaper’s enquiries, the complainant had
defended the siting of a static caravan; and the complainant confirmed that he
had acted for his partner in a previous planning application in relation to the
same land. The Committee acknowledged that it was inaccurate to describe the
complainant as owning the land, but took the view that, in the above
circumstances, it was not significantly misleading. It welcomed the newspaper’s
offer to publish a correction to make clear that the land is formally owned by
Ms Snook.
13. The Committee acknowledged the complainant’s position
that the siting of a static caravan was a “permitted development”, and that
there was therefore neither a breach of planning law, nor a retrospective
planning application. Nevertheless, a PCN notice had been served on the
complainant’s partner, which identified the suspected breach of planning
control. In response to this PCN, whilst the complainant’s consultant denied
any breach of planning law, he nevertheless notified the council that a
planning application was being prepared for the retention of the mobile home
for use as a residence by an agricultural worker. The council had referred to
the application as retrospective in its contact with the newspaper, and the
report to the planning committee for its 17 December meeting referred to the
application as “partially retrospective”. In these circumstances, it was not
significantly misleading to refer to the planning application as retrospective.
14. Where the council, the body charged with enforcing
planning laws, had identified that the stationing and residential use of the
caravan was a suspected breach of planning control, and the complainant’s
response to this was to submit a planning application for the retention of the
mobile home, it was not misleading to report that he had “flouted strict
planning laws”. The Committee noted that the earlier article under complaint
reported the complainant’s position that there was no breach of planning law.
15. No significance attached to whether the council’s
agricultural consultant had said that the alpacas required 24-hour monitoring,
or if he said simply that a presence was needed on the site. This aspect of the
complaint did not raise a breach of Clause 1.
16. The articles reported on an application for planning
permission. This did not intrude on the complainant’s privacy, and there was no
breach of Clause 3.
17. The text messages from the reporter to the
complainant were not intimidating, but were professional in tone, and she had
not persisted in questioning the complainant after a request to desist. There
was no breach of Clause 4.
18. The complainant had not raised a concern which
engaged the terms of Clause 2, Clause 6, Clause 12 or Clause 13, and the
Committee did not consider these aspects of his complaint further.
Conclusions
19. The complaint was not upheld.
Remedial Action Required
N/A
Date complaint received: 29/12/2014
Date decision issued: 23/04/2015