ASA Adjudication on Broadview Energy Ltd

Ad

A leaflet, for a proposed wind farm site, was headlined "Low Spinney Wind Farm Public Consultation" and invited people to visit their exhibition on 15 October 2008. Text inside stated "Our proposal We are proposing a 5 turbine wind farm in Harborough District ... Each turbine consists of an 80 metre tower, with blades measuring 45 metres in diameter, for a total height of 125m ... The Low Spinney site has a number of advantages: ... Sufficient land for a small scheme set away from properties ... The results of these studies will be used to prepare the Environmental Statement which will form part of the planning applications that we intend to submit to Hambleton District Council ...". Text at the bottom of a 'Questionnaire' stated "Data Protection: the personal details of people who provide feedback on the Seamer Windfarm ...". The leaflet also included a photomontage of how the wind turbines would look; text at the bottom stated "Low Spinney Wind Farm preliminary view (not to industry standard)". Next to the photomontage was a map of the area with a red dot marking the area of the proposed site.

Issue

Nine complainants objected that:

1. the photomontage gave a misleading impression of the size of the turbines;

2. the map and red dot gave a misleading impression of the size of the proposed wind farm and the proximity of the site to homes;

3. the claim "set away from properties" was misleading, because the turbines would be around 350 metres from the nearest home;

4. the claim "We are proposing a 5 turbine wind farm in Harborough District" was misleading, because they believed there would be up to 10 turbines at the proposed site;

5. the claim "with blades measuring 45 metres in diameter" was misleading, because they believed the blades would measure 90 metres in diameter;

6. the claim "... that we intend to submit to Hambleton District Council" was misleading, because they believed the correct local authority was Harborough District Council; and

7. the claim "... the personal details of people who provide feedback on the Seamer Windfarm" was misleading, because that was not the name of the proposed wind farm site.

CAP Code (Edition 11)

Response

Broadview Energy (Broadview) said the date of the consultation had passed and they had no future plans for the ad.  They said they used a template document to produce all their leaflets and changed certain claims depending on the location.

1. Broadview said the photomontage was prepared in-house using an industry accepted computer software programme.  They said they arranged for the image to be reviewed independently by a computer visualisations services company who specialised in creating wind farm photomontages to the appropriate standard for planning applications; they had produced a photomontage using the original photography.  Broadview said, following the complaints, they had been in touch with the computer visualisations company and they had told them the turbines did not appear too small, but that it was not possible to have a high degree of confidence without taking photos with a calibrated camera and surveying waypoints.

Broadview pointed out that the photomontage was qualified with the statement "Low Spinney Wind Farm preliminary view (not to industry standards)" and was less than 4 cm in height, but depicted structures that were approximately 120 m in height.  They argued that, at best, it could provide only a very general indication of how the project might look and was unlikely to mislead.

Broadview said they agreed with one of the complainants that the trees in the photomontage were roughly 10-15 m high.  However, they disagreed with that complainant that the foremost turbine in the photomontage was closer to the viewpoint than the trees.  They said the nearest turbine was over 500 m from the viewpoint, while the trees were closer, at around 200-380 m from the viewpoint.  They sent an overhead image of the site and marked where the foremost turbine in the photomontage would be.

2. Broadview said the red dot on the map was intended to show the general area and not the actual site.  They believed it was not misleading, because it was highly unlikely that a site comprising of five turbines would be a perfect circle.  They said, following the complaints, they had amended their template document for future events to show the entire site boundaries.  

3. Broadview believed the claim was not misleading.  They pointed out that they had not stated the distance away from the nearest home and said that was decided by various factors, such as a full noise-impact assessment and other detailed environmental and technical studies.  They said they followed planning guidelines when designing the final site layout and expected the property to be at least 500 m away from houses.

4. Broadview said their initial assessment of the site suggested that a maximum of six turbines could be situated on the site and that was reflected in the Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping Document they had submitted to Harborough Council on 12 May 2008.  They said, as more information regarding the site had come to hand, they had revised their view to five turbines and had issued a press release to that effect.  They said at no point during their consultation process, or in their leaflet, had they suggested that the Low Spinney site could accommodate 10 turbines and that their current proposal remained at five.

5. Broadview said they had made a typographical error regarding the blades and the claim should have stated "45 metre radius", which they pointed out equated to a 90 m diameter.  They pointed out that the sentence went on to say "... for a total height of 125 metres" and believed, while the blade dimensions were incorrectly stated, the ad was not misleading, because they were using the information to establish the total height of the turbines, which was correctly stated.  They said they had amended their template document for future events to state "a blade length of xx m".

6. & 7. Broadview said they had used a template document to produce the consultation notification leaflet and they had not picked up on the errors during the editing and proof reading process; the leaflet had remained unchanged from the last time the leaflet template was used.  They said those mistakes were noticed just prior to the consultation and a revised leaflet was made available to everyone who attended the exhibition.  They also said they had put in place two extra in-house checks on any leaflet being distributed to local communities.

Assessment

THIS ADJUDICATION REPLACES THAT PUBLISHED ON 14 JANUARY 2009.   THE VERDICT ON POINT 1 HAS CHANGED, MAKING THE COMPLAINT UPHELD.

1. Upheld

The ASA considered that readers were likely to understand from the text "Low Spinney Wind Farm preliminary view (not to industry standards)" that the image was an estimation of how the turbines would appear.  However, we considered that readers would still expect the image to be a reasonably accurate depiction of how the turbines would look in relation to the trees.  We noted Broadviews agreement that the trees were around 10-15 m high and their assertion that the front turbine was further away from the viewpoint than the trees.  We considered, however, that the base of the front turbine in the photomontage appeared to be in line with the trees if not actually in front of them, rather than between 120 and 300 m behind them.  We noted that was not the intended position, but considered that readers would form an incorrect impression of the height of all the turbines because a 80 m high turbine located in line with the trees would need to appear in the photomontage to be five to six times higher than the trees instead of merely twice as high.  We concluded that the ad misrepresented the height of the turbines and was therefore misleading.  

On this point, the ad breached CAP Code clause 7.1 (Truthfulness).

2. Upheld

We considered that readers could understand from the ad that the red dot on the map marked the whole area of the proposed wind farm.  We noted that was not the case and that the actual site covered a much wider area; we considered that the red dot was therefore likely to mislead readers as to the area covered by the proposed wind farm.  We welcomed Broadview's assurance that they would make clear the full site boundaries in future ads.

On this point, the ad breached CAP Code clause 7.1 (Truthfulness).

3. Not upheld

We noted the ad did not state the distance away from the nearest home but that Broadview said they would follow planning guidelines when designing the final site layout and expected the property to be at least 500 m away from properties.  We considered that readers were likely to understand the claim "set away from properties" to mean that the proposed wind farm site was near to, but not right next to, properties.  We understood that those who lived near the proposed wind farm would have been informed of the proposal and would know about the plans.  We considered that, because there was no specific distance from properties mentioned in the ad, and because Broadview would be complying with planning guidelines in respect of the site's proximity to properties, the claim was unlikely to mislead readers to their detriment.  

On this point, we investigated the ad under CAP code clause 7.1 (Truthfulness) but did not find it in breach.

4. Not upheld

We noted Broadview's current proposal was for five turbines at the proposed site.  We also noted they had only ever considered a maximum of six turbines at the site and that at no point had they proposed 10 turbines.  We noted some of the complainants had said they had read reports that up to 10 turbines would be built; however, because we understood that the current proposal was for five turbines, we considered that the claim was not misleading.

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

5. Upheld

We noted Broadview had made an error and had stated that the blades had a diameter of 45 m instead of a radius of 45 m.  We considered that the ad could therefore mislead readers about the size of the blades.  We welcomed Broadview's assurance that they would make clear the complete blade length in future ads.

On point 5, the ad breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation) and 7.1 (Truthfulness).

6. & 7. Upheld

We noted Broadview had made a mistake and referred to the wrong Local Council and wind farm site, because they had not amended the claims from previous uses of the leaflet.  We considered that the claims could therefore mislead.  We welcomed their assurance that they would amend future ads and that they had taken steps to ensure further checks on ads before they were distributed in future.

On points 6 & 7, the ad breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation) and 7.1 (Truthfulness).

Action

The ad must not appear again in its current form.  We told Broadview to ensure their claims were accurate in future advertising.  

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)