The NZ Media Council has upheld a complaint by Elizabeth Kelsey against the Otago Daily Times, finding a report about a proposed Canterbury solar farm was inaccurate because it presented a disputed issue as settled fact.

The complaint concerned a 13 May 2026 article published in Star News under the headline “Controversial solar farm scaled back.” The story reported that the proposed size of a solar farm had been reduced after native vegetation was removed from part of the site and stated that a section of land had been removed from the resource consent application. It also covered criticism of the project and issues raised during a resource consent hearing.

Elizabeth Kelsey, a participant in the hearing process, argued the article was inaccurate because it stated the project had already been reduced in size when, in fact, the issue remained before independent hearing commissioners. She said the applicant, Far North Solar Farm Ltd, had sought to amend its application, but that move was actively opposed by community group Waipara Valley Community Collective Inc and had not yet been formally determined. She also argued the article failed to properly reflect opposition to the proposed amendment.

The Otago Daily Times defended its reporting, saying the applicant had advised the hearing it was reducing the scope of the proposal and that commissioners had previously indicated applicants could amend consent applications provided they did not expand their scope. The newspaper argued its description of the solar farm being “scaled back” accurately reflected the position put forward by the applicant at the hearing.

However, the Media Council found there was an important distinction between an applicant seeking to amend an application and the amendment having actually taken effect. The Council noted that Elizabeth Kelsey had clearly opposed the change through both written and oral submissions and had urged commissioners to reject it. Because the issue remained disputed, the Council said the article should have reflected that uncertainty.

The Council concluded that wording stating the solar farm “has been reduced” and that land “had been removed from the application” presented the matter as settled when it was still contested. It said more careful wording, such as reporting that the applicant “sought to reduce” the application, would have accurately reflected the position.

While finding the article inaccurate, the Council rejected claims that it lacked balance. It noted that reporting on ongoing proceedings can be assessed across multiple stories and that subsequent coverage by publications within the Otago Daily Times’ media group included the complainant’s perspective.

The complaint was upheld under Principle (1) in relation to accuracy.

The full Media Council ruling can be found Media Council - Elizabeth Kelsey against the Otago Daily Times.

The original article can be found here: odt.co.nz/canterbury/controversial-solar-farm-scaled-back-q2d8bjbf