01083-25 Bridgend County Borough Council v Nation.Cymru

Summary of Complaint

1. Bridgend County Borough Council complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that Nation.Cymru breached Clause 1 of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Businessman ‘threatened with withdrawal of grant’ after opposing controversial hydrogen plant’”, published on 21 February 2025.

2. The article – which appeared online only – reported that a local businessman, “who spoke at a council meeting in opposition to a controversial hydrogen power plant is furious after a planning officer was overheard saying that the offer of a business grant to his company should be withdrawn.”

3. It went on to report the businessman’s “company was recently awarded a £25,000 business grant by the council. During his speech as the proposed hydrogen plant was being discussed at the meeting, he overheard a planning officer say to a more senior council employee: ‘We will take his business grant from him’.”

4. It also reported that the businessman “said he was so angry about what he heard that he reported it to the police after the meeting. ‘I’m not planning to make a formal statement immediately, but I wanted to have it recorded by the police.’”

5. The complainant said that the article was inaccurate, in breach of Clause 1, to report: that “a planning officer was overheard saying that the offer of a business grant to [the businessman’s] company should be withdrawn”; and that “he overheard a planning officer say to a more senior council employee: ‘We will take his business grant from him’.” It strongly disputed any of its planning officers said this.

6. It said the official recording of the meeting was publicly available on the Council’s website and on YouTube, and the alleged comment was not audible on the recording. It added the publication did not have a reporter present at the meeting and therefore had no first-hand knowledge of what was said. It noted that another publication, which had a reporter present at the meeting, had not reported the alleged comment.

7. It also said it had not been approached ahead of the article’s publication, either for verification or to provide the right to reply. It said the article reported, as fact, that this had been said, but that the publication had not taken sufficient care to check the veracity of the businessman’s claim.

8. The complainant also said the article breached Clause 1 because it reported that the businessman “said he was so angry about what he heard that he reported it to the police after the meeting.’” It disputed that a police report had been made, as it had not been contacted by South Wales Police about any such report.

9. The publication did not accept that the article was inaccurate. It said it considered the businessman to be a credible and trustworthy source, based on his knowledge of the hydrogen industry and of the company which was the subject of the meeting discussion.

10. The publication accepted it had not approached the complainant, or the planning officer who had allegedly made the comment, for comment ahead of publication – it said this was because there was not sufficient time to do so. It said it had wanted to publish the report of the meeting as contemporaneously as possible, and ahead of other news outlets. It said the proposed hydrogen plant which was the subject of the meeting discussion was of significant interest to its readers, and it was confident of the accuracy of the story and saw no reason not to run it at the earliest opportunity. However, in light of the fact that it had not had time to reach out to either party for comment, it had decided not to name the planning officer in the article.

11. It said the morning after the article was published it received a direct complaint from Bridgend County Borough Council, in response to which it offered the Council the opportunity to reply. However, the Council did not accept the offer.

12. The publication did not accept that the article was significantly inaccurate, but said it was still content to publish a statement from the complainant.

13. Turning to the businessman’s claim that he reported the planning officer’s comment to the police after the meeting, the publication said it was satisfied this was accurate. To support it position, it provided an email from the managing director of the businessman’s company, which said the meeting “ended with a punitive threat being made to a public member by BCBC whilst he was speaking and subsequently a police report being filed.”

14. The complainant said that the publication’s response failed to acknowledge that the businessman was not a neutral source, and that in fact the Council considered him to have an active interest in the outcome of the planning meeting. It said that the publication had prioritised reporting the story quickly over being accurate. It did not accept the publication’s position that it needed to compete with other news outlets to be the first to publish a story on the meeting – it said there had been only one other reporter in attendance at the meeting, and that the other reporter’s article had been published over 12 hours after the article under complaint.

15. It said, in light of this, it was reasonable to expect the publication to have taken time to verify the claim and to have approached the council for comment ahead of the article going to publication. It said that, by accepting the businessman’s version of events without checking whether it was disputed by the Council, the publication had failed to take care to avoid reporting inaccurate and misleading information, and that the publication should have given the Council the opportunity to reply to the allegation before the story was published, rather than waiting until a complaint had been received.

16. The complainant also said that the publication had failed to provide any evidence that the disputed comment had been made, such as a recording or reporting by other journalists. It questioned the likelihood of a planning officer saying – in a public meeting which was being recorded and webcast, and which had members of the public, councillors, and journalists present – that he would remove grant funding from an individual who was at that point addressing the meeting. It also said it was improbable that the planning officer would have been able to make the alleged comment within earshot of the businessman, without it being picked up by the microphones which were recording the meeting. It said that the alleged comment had not been picked up on any recording, had not been corroborated by any other witnesses, and had not been reported elsewhere.

17. The complainant said that the email from the managing director of the businessman’s company which referred to a police report being made after the meeting was irrelevant; the Council had never been contacted by South Wales Police about the matter, and was unaware of any such police report.

Relevant Clause 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.

Findings of the Committee

18. The Committee first wished to be clear that its role was to decide on whether, in reporting the disputed allegation, the publication had done so in a manner which did not breach the Code. Its role was not to establish whether or not the planning officer had made the alleged comment during the meeting.

19. The Committee noted the complainant’s position that the publication had failed to take care not to publish inaccurate information because it had: relied on the businessman as its only source; not taken any further steps to verify that the purported comment had been made by the planning officer; not been able to provide any evidence that the comment had been made; failed to approach it for comment ahead of the article being published; and presented the businessman's allegation as fact.

20. It also noted the publication’s position that it had not been necessary to take steps to verify the claims by obtaining supporting evidence, or to approach the Council for comment, given that: it considered the businessman who had made the claim to be a reliable source; believed the comment still could have been made even if it had not been picked up by the recording devices in the room; and because it wanted to publish the article as soon as possible after the meeting.

21. The Committee considered that the article did not make clear the status of the allegation: namely, that it was the account of the businessman. It had not taken steps to approach the complainant for comment and, as a consequence, the complainant’s position that it strongly disputed the claim had not been included in the article. The article was, therefore, misleading, as the omission of the complainant’s position gave the impression that the allegation was unchallenged and therefore was accepted by the complainant– which was not the case.

22. The Committee did not consider that the publication’s reporting of the meeting was so time-sensitive as to justify not offering the complainant the opportunity to reply ahead of publication. For example, it was not a rapidly changing or breaking news story. Rather, one of the publication’s reasons for not contacting the complainant was to ensure it published its own coverage ahead of its competitors. The Committee was clear that this did not justify the publication of misleading information.

23. As such, the Committee considered that the publication had not taken care not to publish misleading information, and there was a breach of Clause 1 (i).

24. The Committee considered that it was significantly misleading for the article to give the impression that the complainant accepted a serious allegation about the conduct of one of its employees. It therefore required correction under the terms of Clause 1 (ii).

25. The Committee noted that having been contacted by the complainant the morning after the article’s publication, the newspaper had offered to add a statement to the article setting out the complainant’s position, which the complainant had not accepted. In circumstances where the publication had offered to add the complainant’s position to the article, the Committee was satisfied that the publication had taken prompt steps to attempt to correct the article. Accordingly, there was no breach of Clause 1 (ii).

26. The Committee next considered whether the article was inaccurate or misleading to report that the businessman “said he was so angry about what he heard that he reported it to the police after the meeting”. Although the complainant had said it doubted that a report to the police had been made, the Committee noted that the complainant was not in a position to know whether or not the businessman had contacted the police. It was also possible that he had contacted the police but that the matter had not been pursued. Furthermore, this had clearly been distinguished as a statement which had been made by the businessman. In such circumstances, the Committee did not consider that the article was inaccurate on this point and there was no breach of Clause 1.

Conclusions

27. The complaint was partly upheld under Clause 1 (i).

Remedial action required

28. Having upheld the complaint, the Committee considered what remedial action should be required. In circumstances where the Committee establishes a breach of the Editors’ Code, it can require the publication of a correction and/or an adjudication; the nature, extent and placement of which is determined by IPSO.

29. The article included significantly misleading information, as it included a serious allegation about the alleged conduct of an employee of Bridgend County Borough Council without making clear that the organisation disputed these allegations, and had failed to distinguish the businessman’s claim as comment rather than fact.

30. While the publication had offered to publish the complainant’s response to this allegation, it had not done so as the complainant did not wish for it to do so. While there was no further breach of Clause 1 (ii) therefore, the publication was still required to remedy the breach of Clause 1 (i).

31. While the Committee considered the article was significantly misleading, it noted that the publication had taken steps to try to address the breach of the Code, by offering to publish the complainant’s rebuttal to the allegations in the article. On balance, therefore, the Committee considered that a correction was the appropriate remedy. The correction should set out the complainant’s position – that it denies that during a council meeting, a Bridgend County Borough Council planning officer commented that the council would withdraw a businessman’s grant after he spoke in opposition of a hydrogen plant.

32. The Committee then considered the placement of this correction. If the publication intends to continue to publish the online article without amendment, the correction on the article should be published beneath the headline. If the article is amended, the correction should be published as a footnote. The Committee considered this to be a duly prominent position, given the misleading information only appeared in the text of the article, rather than in the headline.

33. The wording should be agreed with IPSO in advance and should make clear that it has been published following an upheld ruling by the Independent Press Standards Organisation. 

Date complaint received: 21/03/2025

Date complaint closed: 24/09/2025