This Is Cheshire

Commission clears Guardian over Anaconda complaint

From the archive, first published Thursday 3rd Jan 2008.

THE Press Complaints Commission has rejected a complaint made by Ms Ruth Elliott-Smith of Anaconda Investments about a report that appeared in the Northwich Guardian on October 3, last year.

Ms Elliott-Smith had complained the story was in breach of Clause 1 of the PCC Code of Practice which relates to the accuracy of news reports.

The story reported on the decision by a planning inspector to refuse retrospective planning permission for one part of Anaconda's development in Weaverham - Block A - that had been built closer to a neighbouring home than the original planning permission had allowed.

Ms Elliott-Smith made a number of complaints about the story.

She said one of the headlines was misleading and complained about comments made in the story by Weaver Vale MP Mike Hall.

She also contended the report was inaccurate because it had ignored a large part of the press release issued by Ms Elliott-Smith and had 'minimised' the 'major news' in the press release that Anaconda had called for the resignation of the Mayor of Vale Royal and the vice-chairman of planning and that £100,000 of public money had been wasted by the council.

In it's adjudication the PCC ruled that the selection and presentation of material was a matter for editorial discretion and the commission was satisfied that the central facts of the story - that the independent planning inspector had approved planning permission for all but Block A of the development - would be clear to readers.

The commission also stated that the headline Ms Elliott-Smith complained of had to be considered in the context of the article as a whole and that the headline and story taken together were not misleading.

The commission noted complaints from Ms Elliott-Smith about the inclusion and accuracy of comments by MP Mike Hall.

The adjudication states: "The commission was satisfied that the robustly subjective nature of these comments would be clear to readers generally, who would not be misled into believing that they would be universally accepted or indeed that there was no alternative view on the matter. The commission was satisfied that the newspaper was entitled to publish the views of this individual in the manner which it had."

The commission ruled there was no breach of the Code of Practice.