ASA Adjudication on RUNGA

Ad

Two leaflets distributed by RUNGA (Are You Naïve Gullible Apathetic) in opposition to a proposed wind farm development. a. The first leaflet was headlined “Help Stop Lotus Ruining Your Countryside”. A photograph showing three wind turbines in a field was accompanied by text that stated “Lotus Cars and Ecotricity have applied for planning permission to build three 120 metre high wind turbines at their site at Hethel. If you have difficulty in envisaging exactly how high these turbines will be, 120m is 390 feet, the equivalent to the height of 28 double decker buses stacked on top of each other and higher than the spire of Norwich Cathedral. RUNGA has been set up to fight this totally inappropriate development in this rural and attractive part of South Norfolk. If this development were to be allowed to proceed; The landscape would be spoilt for many miles around Your property would be de-valued by between 15% & 20% The noise would be heard up to 5 miles away Your sleep and general health could be affected Your TV picture would be [sic] probably be affected”. A graphic demonstration on the rear of the leaflet showed a wind turbine positioned beside a church. Height markers showed that the turbine measured 130 metres, whereas the church was measured at 18 metres. Text stated “Why you should be objecting; Visual Impact - ugly, highly obtrusive turbines that will blight the countryside Noise & Nuisance - the constant noise (24 hours a day) will be heard up to 5 miles away, whilst the thudding vibration can cause anxiety, nausea and stress Unproven Technology - these turbines produce only a fraction of the benefits promised and in many countries they are already being decommissioned Effect on Wildlife - the area is a haven for Barn, Tawny & Long Eared Owls, Sparrow Hawks, Kestrels & Bats. No research has been conducted on how wildlife will be affected …”. b. The second leaflet was headed “RUNGA … The story so far … In late June, Ecotricity submitted a formal planning application for the erection of three massive 390 feet high wind turbines on land belonging to Lotus Cars. Immediately RUNGA was formed as the action group to fight this inappropriate development …”. Text on the rear of the leaflet under the heading “Your Questions Answered” stated “… Will They Power Local Houses & Businesses? - No, any electricity they generate will go directly onto the national grid and will not provide any benefit to the local area or its residents … these turbines will not even provide direct electricity to the Lotus factory. Do Turbines Such As These Affect the Wildlife? - They certainly do. Hethel is a haven for barn owls and bats, amongst many other protected species. Both slow flying raptors and bats are particularly vulnerable to the fast moving turbine blades. Although, because of their size, the blades look as if they are moving slowly, they can rotate at speeds of up to 180mph. At that speed a bird has just over a second before the next blade passes. In California, one wind farm has been responsible for the death of over 20,000 bats! …”. Boxed text under the heading “Important - We need your help” stated “So far, the cost of fighting Lotus and Ecotricity has been borne by a handful of supporters. We now need the help of all of the community to move our campaign forward. Please help us to help you - it is YOUR home that will be devalued, YOUR sleep that will be disturbed and YOUR taxes that will be used to build it! …”. A photograph under the heading “Yet More Deception?” showed an empty field with trees and buildings in the distance; text beneath stated “Ecotricity have recently submitted a Supplementary Environmental Statement in support of their application. Basically, this contains further photomontages of the area, using a before and after principle. Like their earlier efforts, these photomontages are cleverly taken to deceive the true effect on the landscape. For example, the one shown above is supposed to show the effect the turbines will have on Corporation Farmhouse, a listed building. Taken from 1km away, you can’t even see the farmhouse. Contrast this with RUNGA’s own photomontage, taken much closer to the building and reflecting the true effect that one of these turbines will have on this listed building! Are we being deceived - you decide!”. A photograph alongside that text showed a house surrounded by trees and hedgerow; two blades of a wind turbine were visible above the house in the background.

Issue

The Renewable Energy Company t/a Ecotricity (Ecotricity) challenged whether the following claims in ad (a) were misleading and could be substantiated:

1.  "Your property would be devalued by between 15% and 20%", because they believed there was no evidence to demonstrate a direct link between wind farms and house prices;

2.  "Your TV picture would be [sic] probably be affected", because they understood that research showed that the BBC and local TV operators had approved the proposal and Ecotricity's Environmental Statement explained how any adverse effect could be mitigated;

3.  "the constant noise (24 hours a day) will be heard up to 5 miles away", because a noise assessment of the development had been carried out, which showed that the proposal would meet the noise criteria designed to protect residential amenity during the day and night; and

4.  "No research has been conducted on how wildlife will be affected", because an assessment had been carried out on the potential effects of flora and fauna, the results of which had been approved by Natural England.

Ecotricity also challenged whether the following claims in ad (b) were misleading and could be substantiated:  

5.  "these turbines will not even provide direct electricity to the Lotus factory", because the proposal was designed to supply electricity directly to the Lotus facility, with surplus supplies being exported to the National Grid;

6.  "it is YOUR sleep that will be affected", because they believed no evidence linked wind farm developments with sleep disturbance;

7.  "it is YOUR taxes that will be used to build it", because the cost of the proposal would be met by private finance and not by tax payers;

8.  "these photomontages are cleverly taken to deceive the true effect on the landscape"; and

9.  "you can't even see the farmhouse", because the photomontages had been produced following a robust methodology and in consultation with the local planning authority and, in their view, were not deceptive.

CAP Code (Edition 11)

Response

RUNGA did not respond to the ASAs enquiries.

Assessment

Upheld

The ASA was concerned by RUNGA's lack of response and apparent disregard for the Code, which was a breach of CAP Code clause 2.6 (Non-response). We reminded them of their obligations under the Code and told them to respond promptly in future.

1. - 9. Upheld

We did not receive any substantiation in support of the claims "Your property would be devalued by between 15% and 20%", "Your TV picture would be [sic] probably be affected", "the constant noise (24 hours a day) will be heard up to 5 miles away", "No research has been conducted on how wildlife will be affected" in ad (a) and "these turbines will not even provide direct electricity to the Lotus factory", "it is YOUR sleep that will be affected", "it is YOUR taxes that will be used to build it", "these photomontages are cleverly taken to deceive the true effect on the landscape" and "you can't even see the farmhouse" in ad (b).  

We considered that the claims were objective and, in accordance with the CAP Code, RUNGA should have held documentation to substantiate them prior to publication.  As we had not seen evidence, we concluded that the claims were unfounded and likely to mislead.

On points 1-9, ads (a) and (b) breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 and 3.2 (Substantiation) and 7.1 (Truthfulness).

Action

We told RUNGA to remove the claims from future marketing and we asked CAP to advise its members of the problem with RUNGA.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)