ASA Adjudication on Stop Benington Wind Farm Action Group

Ad

A leaflet, distributed in opposition to a proposed wind farm development, stated "The landscape of Benington could be changed for ever … and Aston, Watton-at Stone, Dane End, Datchworth and Knebworth". Text inside the leaflet stated "Stop the wind farm in Benington The Bott family, who have farmed the land around Benington for over 100 years, and who have done much to preserve the environment, are now set on a course to destroy the local landscape for at least 25 years. They are planning to build a wind farm on high land to the south of Benington, comprising three giant 120 metre (400ft) turbines. These massive structures will be visible and dominate the landscape for miles around. The noise they emit - day and night - could cause distress to hundreds of local residents, some of whom will be less than half a mile away …".

The leaflet included several photographs. One photograph on the front cover of the leaflet showed three wind turbines overlooking woodland; accompanying text stated "Image shown is a computer generated view of the proposed wind farm viewed from Town Lane, Benington". Another photograph inside the leaflet showed three turbines installed in a field; text stated "The turbines as they would appear from High Elms Lane, Benington". A third photograph showed the turbines positioned behind a row of houses; text stated "The view from the cricket pitch in Aston".

Issue

R.H. Bott and Son challenged whether:

1.  the photographs and their accompanying claims "Image shown is a computer generated view of the proposed wind farm viewed from Town Lane, Benington", "The turbines as they would appear from High Elms Lane, Benington" and "The view from the cricket pitch in Aston"; were misleading, because they believed the photographs did not accurately represent the visual perception of the proposed wind farm from the quoted locations; and

2.  the claim "The noise they emit - day and night - could cause distress to hundreds of local residents" could be substantiated, because the proposed development conformed to government guidelines laid down for wind farm noise levels.

CAP Code (Edition 11)

Response

1.  Stop Benington Wind Farm Action Group (SBWF) explained that they had deduced the intended general position of the turbines using photographs displayed locally by the developer and from the location of a 50 m anemometer, which had been positioned at the turbines' proposed site, and which they had subsequently used as a reference point.  

They said a photographer had taken photographs from several locations and those locations were then plotted onto an enlarged section of a 1:25,000 Ordnance Survey map in relation to the given reference point.  SBWF explained that the actual proposed locations of each turbine were taken from a sketch map obtained from the developer, which showed that the turbines were to be positioned in a triangular formation.  

They said they had obtained a photograph of a turbine of similar proportions to those for the proposed development, which they believed to be 119 m in height, and adjusted the rotor blades to show the turbines at different rotations.  They explained that, from the known height of the anemometry mast reference point, they were able to superimpose images of the turbines onto the photographs, scaled up to 119 m.  They then accurately calculated both the proposed position and scale of the wind farm from the quoted locations.  SBWF sent details of their calculations in preparation for the photomontages used in the leaflet for the ASA's attention.  

SBWF pointed out that, in relation to the image identified as "The view from the cricket pitch in Aston", in their opinion the image was not misleading, but showed accurately the dimensions and outline of the turbines from the view point of someone standing on the cricket pitch and looking towards the turbines.  They also pointed out that the photograph was not cropped to focus primarily on the turbines, which could have exacerbated their size.

SBWF said they had not received any complaints about their leaflet directly and believed readers, who understood that it had been compiled by local residents, would be impressed with the level of care taken over the production of the photographs.  

2.  SBWF acknowledged the document identified as "ETSU-R-97 "The assessment and rating of noise from wind farms"" (ETSU) as the method for assessment of noise from wind turbines.  They also pointed out that the Companion Guide to the Government document "Planning Policy Statement 22 "Renewable Energy"" (PPS22) recommended that the method described in ETSU should be considered as "Recommended good practice on controlling noise from wind turbines". They said the ETSU document was prepared and published on behalf of the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI), which, they pointed out, was the Government department charged with the promotion of industry, but not with the protection of the environment, and the ETSU report was heavily weighted in favour of the wind power industry.  

SBWF argued that ETSU compliance, however, did not mean that turbines would be inaudible outside or within neighbouring properties.  They said there had been much criticism about the level of noise emitted by turbines, which had been classed as ETSU compliant, and that scientific and empirical evidence showed that ETSU compliance had not prevented distress being caused to those in the vicinity of turbines.  They cited a paper by Frey & Haddon, 2007, entitled "Noise radiation from wind turbines installed near homes: effects on health", which recommended a distance of at least 2 km and said other UK studies had concluded that turbines should be at least 1.5 miles from homes.  They added that a minimum distance of 2 km had already been implemented in Scotland.  

SBWF believed the method by which ETSU set its suggested noise limits was flawed.  They said it relied on averages, which meant that it did not take into account noise that could be suffered at extreme levels, such as an intermittent gun shot or engine revving, but recorded only noises that were present for 100% of a 10 minute period.  They said, in addition, it allowed for more noise at night, when background noise was low, which increased the likelihood of sleep disturbance. They referred to the DTI 2006 Report, which suggested that the ETSU report underestimated the allowance for modulation of aerodynamic noise and that, under certain atmospheric conditions, modulation was significantly higher than expected and could be audible within nearby dwellings, particularly in the early hours of the morning.  SBWF said ETSU also allowed for measurements to be taken at a height of 10 m, rather than actual hub height, which, they said, had been criticised for estimating night noise when wind speeds at 10 m could be low, but remained high enough at hub height to turn turbine blades.  They believed, therefore, because of changes in the wind profile over the course of a day not being taken into account by ETSU guidelines and because ETSU assessed wind farm noise by different methods than those for industry and other renewable energy developments, it could allow for noise levels at nearby housing to be significantly greater than that permitted for other noise sources.  

SBWF explained that there were different types of noise caused by wind turbines: mechanical and electrical noise (which had been reduced with modern turbine technology) and aerodynamic noise including aerodynamic modulation; the rhythmic sound caused by the blade as it passed the tower.  They said this sound, often referred to as 'blade swish', increased with the speed of the blades' rotation.  

SBWF said they had concluded, from reading articles and reports on the issue, that all those types of noise, either individually or cumulatively, could cause distress as their leaflet proposed. They sent extracts from many published academic papers, which criticised the methodology of ETSU and reported on complaints received about wind farm annoyance.  One recent report from the University of Salford entitled "Research into Aerodynamic Modulation of Wind Turbine Noise" reported that 27 out of 133 wind farm sites currently operational across the UK had attracted complaints about noise.   

SBWF explained that noise from the proposed development could affect 200 residents, because they understood that the general professional consensus was that noise disturbance could affect those within 1.5-2 km of wind turbines and they should not, therefore, be erected within that range of habited properties. They said more than 200 homes were within 2 km of each turbine in this instance.  

They reiterated their view that compliance with the ETSU report did not necessarily mean that noise was inaudible or could not cause distress and that there was no reason why SBWF should not alert that fact to those who may be affected; they said it had never been their intention to mislead readers in this regard.

Assessment

1. Not upheld

We noted SBWF had taken care to accurately present the proposed position and size of the turbines on their leaflet.  We also understood the complainants concern that the images in the leaflet were not representative of an actual human eye view and showed the turbines positioned too close together.  

In making their complaint, R.H. Bott and Son sent the ASA their own visualisations, which had been prepared in accordance to the document "Visual Representation of Windfarms: Good Practice Guidance" and which showed the proposed wind farm in the context of a greater amount of landscape than that seen in SBWF's leaflet.  While we acknowledged that the turbines appeared less noticeable on the landscape in the complainants' visualisations than those of SBWF, which had not been prepared using the Good Practice Guidance document, we considered that that did not render SBWF's images misleading providing the scale and positioning of the turbines had not been exaggerated.  In addition, we noted text clarified that the image on the front of SBWFs leaflet was a computer generated view.  We believed readers would understand that the photographs were only intended to give recipients of the leaflet a fundamental depiction of how the proposed site could appear from a variety of standpoints.  

We acknowledged that, in this case, the size of the turbines had not been exaggerated or manipulated in SBWF's leaflet.  We understood, however, that, in the complainants view, SBWF had positioned the turbines too close together and documentation from the complainants, including maps showing the proposed locations of the wind turbines, appeared to support that.  

We understood that SBWF had determined the general location of the turbines by using photographs displayed locally by the developer.  We also noted the complainants' assertion that the maps showing the proposed locations had been on display at the same time and had been made available to SBWF on numerous other occasions.  

We accepted that, had the maps been used, more accurate visual representations of the turbines could have been produced but considered that that in itself did not make the photographs in the leaflet misleading.  Because we considered that readers would understand that the images in SBWF's leaflet were only intended to give a fundamental depiction of the proposed development and because SBWF used the photographs displayed by the developer to calculate the general position of the turbines and had done so without exaggerating their scale or location to any great degree, on balance, we concluded that the photographs were not misleading.  

On this point, we investigated the leaflet under CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation) and 7.1 (Truthfulness) but did not find it in breach.    

2.  Upheld

We noted SBWF's comments on the ETSU report and understood that they believed the method underlying the guidance it provided was flawed.  We also noted other authors' similar views from the information SBWF provided and understood that the claim "The noise they emit ... could cause distress to hundreds of local residents" was based on SBWF's belief that all residents within a distance of 2 km from the turbines were susceptible to distress due to noise. We recognised that SBWF had used conditional language and acknowledged that the claim stated that noise from wind farms "could" cause distress, not that it definitely would.  

We considered that readers would infer from the claim that evidence existed to demonstrate that wind farms, in general, had been shown to be problematic due to the noise they emitted.  We noted, however, that was not the case.  The evidence submitted did highlight instances of complaints from residents who said they had suffered annoyance from wind farm noise and, in some cases, from residents who believed wind farm noise underpinned their health problems. We considered, however, that it did not support SBWF's view that the proposed development could cause distress to all residents within a 2 km radius of it.  

We noted, in the reported complaints, there were relevant factors which differed in each case; for example the topography of the land, number of turbines and weather conditions.  It was not possible, therefore, to gauge whether the same experiences could result in all cases and unlikely that the evidence from reported isolated incidences would support claims that the same level of noise annoyance, or more alarmingly, distress, could occur elsewhere.   We concluded that the claim had not been substantiated and was likely to mislead.  

On this point, the leaflet breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation) and 7.1 (Truthfulness).

Action

We told SBWF not to repeat the claim "The noise they emit - day and night - could cause distress to hundreds of local residents" or similar in future marketing.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)