ASA Adjudication on Newham Farm Ltd

Ad

A press insert, for a proposed Council redevelopment, stated on the front page "The Truro & Threemilestone Area Action Plan: A Tale of two Cities? Carrick District Council's newly revised Truro and Threemilestone Area Action Plan will expand Truro's existing boundaries at Highertown, Gloweth and Besore to create a new urban extension the same size as Truro City. We believe that the Council's previous plans, which included land at Higher Newham Farm as part of the city's future expansion, offered a more balanced and sustainable approach towards meeting Truro's future needs. This is our case for Higher Newham Farm to continue to be included in the Truro & Threemilestone Area Action Plan. Edited and Distributed by Newham Farm Ltd".

Text inside the brochure, alongside maps of the previous and current redevelopment proposals, stated "In 2002 Carrick District Council began working on a new Area Action Pan for Truro & Threemilestone. The purpose of the AAP was to identify where up to 5,400 new homes would be located in Truro during the period until 2026. The District Council carried out extensive consultation on the proposals with local residents and other key stakeholders. The results of that effort was a draft Area Action Plan which concentrated the bulk of the development to the south and west of the City. This included up to 1,000 homes on land at Higher Newham Farm, an improved Southern Distributor Road and the potential for Tesco to move to a new location at Newham Farm in order to release the current site for new riverside development ... Following the local elections in 2007, the decision was taken by some Carrick District councillors to review the Area Action Plan. One objective of the review was to decide whether the land at Higher Newham Farm should remain as a 'Preferred Option' for the future; or whether housing should be concentrated in the areas surrounding Threemilestone, Gloweth and Highertown. Councillors decided to remove Higher Newham Farm as a preferred option".

Bullet-pointed text under the heading "THE CASE FOR HIGHER NEWHAM FARM ... THE LAND AT HIGHER NEWHAM IS THE CLOSEST LOCATION TO THE CITY CENTRE" included "The site is close to the centre of Truro and is easily walkable. It is a highly sustainable option. (Very few people are going to walk to Truro from Threemilestone!); Development of the land will at last provide a technical solution to the City's sewage problems at Calenick Pumping Station; New road works will help erase traffic congestion at Arch Hill and create a new cross route and link to Falmouth; A significant amount of the land can be used to create a wonderful new country park with fabulous views across the AONB and down to Truro River; The development will have a new primary school; Development at Newham Farm will provide Tesco with the opportunity to relocate, thus freeing up Garras Wharf to be redeveloped as a new riverside leisure quarter and tourist attraction".

Further text on the back of the insert under the heading "WHAT'S YOUR VIEW?" stated "At Higher Newham Farm, we believe that the consultation carried out by the District Council on the new (Draft) Area Action Plan has been highly selective, exclusive and designed to reach a pre-determined outcome. The council admits that it has not involved local landowners in the previous consultation and that there is no certainty that the land highlighted in the new Area Action Plan can even be delivered. We believe that a new, open and more inclusive debate needs to take place on the future AAP strategy involving all of the key stakeholders, consultees and the wider community".

Issue

1. One complainant challenged whether the ad misleadingly implied that the advertiser was a local farmer, and did not make clear the nature of the advertiser's business.

2. One complainant challenged whether the claim "In 2002 Carrick District Council began working on a new Area Action Plan for Truro and Threemilestone. The purpose of the AAP was to identify where up to 5,400 new homes would be located in Truro in the period until 2026" was misleading, because he believed the figure was 6,400.

3. Two complainants challenged whether the claim "Following the local elections in 2007, the decision was taken by some Carrick District councillors to review the Area Action Plan" was misleading, because the decision was made by the Council as a whole after extensive consultation.

4. Three complainants challenged whether the claim "The site is close to the centre of Truro and is easily walkable" was misleading, because although the site was close to the centre of Truro it could not be described as easily walkable due to steep slopes and the position of the dual carriageway.

5. Two complainants challenged whether the ad misleadingly implied that the proposal outlined was an alternative to development at Threemilestone, and could lead readers to believe that by supporting the proposals at Newham Farm they were helping to stop the proposed development at Threemilestone.

6. Three complainants challenged whether the claim "Development of the land will at last provide a technical solution to the City's sewage problems at Calenick Pumping Station" was misleading and could be substantiated.

7. One complainant challenged whether the claim "New road works will help ease traffic congestion at Arch Hill" could be substantiated.

8. Two complainants challenged whether the claim "A significant amount of the land can be used to create a wonderful new country park with fabulous views across the AONB and down to Truro River" was misleading, because the proposed land was not suitable for a country park.

9. One complainant challenged whether the claim "The development will have a new primary school" was misleading and could be substantiated.

10. One complainant challenged whether the claim "Development at Newham Farm will provide Tesco with the opportunity to relocate, thus freeing up Garras Wharf to be redeveloped as a new riverside leisure quarter and tourist attraction" was misleading, because the advertisers could not make that kind of promise.

11. One complainant objected that the claim "At Higher Newham Farm, we believe that the consultation carried out by the District Council on the new (Draft) Area Action Plan has been highly selective, exclusive and designed to reach a pre-determined outcome" was misleading, because the consultation period was not yet over and the Council was seeking a wide participation by organising a large number of presentations at convenient locations in and around the City, and by publishing material which has informed the current version of the Action Plan, and by asking for feedback via a short response form and an extensive questionnaire.

CAP Code (Edition 11)

Response

Newham Farm Ltd (Newham Farm) said the insert was an invitation to participate in their pre-submission consultation and they explained that pre-application consultation with the community was a legal requirement. They said the pamphlet aimed to distil the principal issues surrounding their arguments for land at Higher Newham Farm to continue to be included in the emerging Area Action Plan (AAP), and was necessarily a summary of their interpretation of previous reports.

1. Newham Farm said Newham Farm Ltd was well known in the district as the developer of the site, not least through extensive correspondence and articles in the newspaper that distributed the pamphlet. They pointed out that the front of the pamphlet stated that it was "Edited and Distributed by Newham Farm Ltd" and included their case for Higher Newham Farm. They explained that Newham Farm Ltd was the legal entity that owned the land and was named on the current planning application.

2. Newham Farm said, since 2002, there had been extensive discussion about the number of new homes that Carrick District Council should accommodate in its future housing strategy. They explained that the South West Regional Authority set the overall target for additional housing regionally, and for the relevant towns including Truro, but that it was up to the local planning district to interpret those plans They said the precise number and location was still the subject of review, but that numbers had ranged from 3,000 to 5,400 to 6,400 and could increase further. Newham Farm explained that they opted for the mid-range figure because, based on the evidence at the time, that was the most accurate and appropriate figure. They submitted extracts from the 2007 and 2008 AAPs that showed the different figures proposed.

3. Newham Farm explained that the decision to review the continued inclusion of land at Higher Newham Farm in the Truro & Threemilestone AAP was taken by Carrick District Council's Cabinet in November 2007, which was not the whole Council. They provided documentation that they said showed the minutes of that meeting.

4. Newham Farm said the question of what was easily walkable was subjective. They said the complainants acknowledged that the site was close to Truro and they argued that many people walked that route daily. They said it took ten minutes to walk from the site into Truro and the vast majority of adults were capable of crossing the main road safely.

5. Newham Farm said it was clear from the two maps in the pamphlet, which had been copied from the Council's plan, that development at Threemilestone would happen in both plans. They pointed out that it was the scale of the development that was different.

6. Newham Farm explained that there was currently an embargo by South West Water on development to the west of Truro as the sewage from all such development had to go through the Calenick pumping station, which was at full capacity. They explained that their proposed development of the site would drain into the Newham sewage work and did not need to go via the Calenick pumping station. They provided a document, which they said supported the claim.

7. Newham Farm explained that, by providing a new road around the south of the proposed site all the southbound traffic from the East going to (and from) Falmouth would use the new road, bypassing the existing Arch Hill roundabout. They explained that the County Council were already planning some improvements to the Arch Hill roundabout as part of their wider plans for the road network. Newham Farm said that as part of their scheme the works would be delivered around five years earlier than planned. They provided an extract from the 2007 AAP in support of the claim.

8. Newham Farm said the planning application contained a substantial country park at the request of Carrick District Council, who had included the country park on their own plans in the 2007 AAP. They provided copies of the master plan and topographical survey, which they said showed where the Council had suggested the country park should go, as well as where they had put it. They said they had been in discussions with the Country Park Provision of the District Council, who had emphasised their requirement for a country park. They provided extracts from documents that they said showed the site was suitable for a country park.

9. Newham Farm explained that the planning application included the provision of a primary school at the request of Cornwall County Council and Carrick District Council. They provided extracts from the 2007 AAP, which they said clearly showed the District and County Councils' desire for such provision. Newham said they had conducted extensive discussions with the Education Provision of the County Council, who had underlined their requirement for a primary school to be included in the application.

10. Newham Farm pointed out that Carrick District Council had made an almost identical statement in the 2007 AAP about the relocation of Tesco, and provided documentation in support of the claim.

11. Newham Farm argued that the phrase "we believe" made it clear that it was their opinion that there had been a lack of consultation. They said there was widespread concern at the lack of consultation and limited engagement carried out by the Council prior to the distribution of their pamphlet. They said, for example, that attendance at the community AAP workshops was by invitation only and the opportunity to participate in them had not been publicised by the Council.

Assessment

1. Not Upheld

The ASA noted Newham Farm's response. We noted that the pamphlet stated that it had been edited and distributed by "Newham Farm Ltd" with the purpose of setting out their case for the inclusion of land at Higher Newham in the Truro and Threemilestone AAP. We also noted that the pamphlet invited the public to view Newham Farm's plans for development at Higher Newham at two public meetings. We considered that it was clear from the ad that Newham Farm Ltd was a company involved in the proposed development at Higher Newham, and we concluded that the ad would not mislead consumers about the nature of the advertiser's business.

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.

2. Upheld

We noted the extracts from the 2007 and 2008 AAPs submitted by Newham Farm, and we acknowledged that the precise number and location of new homes was subject to change. We considered, however, that consumers were likely to understand the claim "The purpose of the AAP was to identify where up to 5,400 new homes would be located in Truro during the period until 2026" to mean that, although the exact figure might be less, 5,400 would be the maximum number of new homes required. We understood that the current 2008 AAP proposed that a total of 6,400 new dwellings were needed in the Truro area by 2026, and we therefore considered that the ad should have made clearer that the stated figures were conditional and subject to change. Because it did not we concluded that on this point the ad was misleading.

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

3. Not upheld

We noted that the documentation provided by Newham Farm showed that the decision to review all options for housing provision in the AAP, including the allocation of land at Higher Newham, was made by Carrick District Council's Cabinet in 2007, which we understood was not the full Council. We noted that the ad referred to the decision to review the AAP in the context of housing provision, and because we understood that that decision was not taken by the full Council we concluded that the ad was unlikely to mislead consumers about the process by which the decision had been made.  

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.

4. Upheld

We understood that the distance between Truro and the proposed development site at Higher Newham was less than one mile, and we acknowledged that that was a theoretically walkable distance. However, we understood that the development site was separated from Truro by a busy dual carriageway that currently had no crossing points and a footpath on one side of the road only. We also understood that further developments would be needed to make the road safe for pedestrians, including the provision of crossing facilities. Because we considered that the route from Higher Newham to Truro was not currently a safe route for pedestrians, and because we understood that the nature of any future developments to the road were still to be determined, we concluded that the claim that "the site is close to the centre of Truro and is easily walkable" was misleading.

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

5. Not upheld

We noted that the brochure featured clear maps of the proposed outline of the Truro development according to both the 2007 AAP and the draft 2008 AAP. We also noted that, whilst the scale of the development around Threemilestone was extended in the 2008 AAP, the development of Threemilestone was included as part of both AAPs. We considered that the maps allowed consumers to compare the extent and nature of the two AAPs, and we therefore concluded that the ad would not mislead consumers into believing that the inclusion of land at Higher Newham Farm would prevent development at Threemilestone.

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.

6. Upheld

We noted that the documentation provided by Newham Farm stated that a benefit of the Higher Newham development was that it would not impact upon the Calenick pumping station. However, we also noted that the document stated that further review of the options available in relation to the City Centre sewerage network, and the most appropriate means of accommodating those developments, was needed. We considered that the claim "Development of the land will at last provide a technical solution to the City's sewage problems at Calenick Pumping Station" implied that all other possible solutions had been exhausted, and that therefore the sewerage and drainage proposals contained in the Higher Newham Farm development plan was the only remaining option and had been agreed upon. We understood, however, that any decision relating to improvements to the sewerage and treatment systems would be taken by South West Water, and that no such decision had yet been made. Because of that, and because we understood that further investigation into potential improvements to the sewerage system was required, we concluded that on this point the ad was misleading.

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

7. Upheld

We noted Newham Farm's response and the short extract from the 2007 AAP, which stated that development at Higher Newham would allow for improvements to the Arch Hill junction. We understood that any bypass to the existing Arch Hill roundabout would be a phased development, and that consequently any improvement in traffic movements would be achieved over a long period of time. We also understood that it was currently unclear whether, and to what extent, the development would provide relief to traffic movements and congestion at Arch Hill, as opposed to merely maintaining traffic levels at their current rate. We considered that the claim "New road works will help ease traffic congestion at Arch Hill" was an absolute claim that implied that the road works would definitely reduce traffic congestion. Because we understood that it was not clear what level of improvement the road development would bring, we concluded that the claim was misleading.

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

8. Not upheld

We noted that the documents provided stated that a formal park and garden could be accommodated in the area proposed at Higher Newham, and discussed specific features that could be included in the garden and park, as well as in a recreation ground on the same site. We considered that that documentation demonstrated that the land was suitable for a country park, and we concluded that on this point the ad 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.

9. Upheld

We noted Newham Farm's response. We understood that the 2007 AAP identified a need for a primary school and suggested that part of the land at Higher Newham could be used for that purpose. However, we also understood that any proposal for a primary school would be subject to further planning permission. We considered that the claim that the development "will provide a new primary school" was an absolute claim that implied that it was certain that a new primary school would be built on the site. Because we understood, however, that the proposed new school had yet to be approved we concluded that the claim was misleading.

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

10. Upheld

We noted the documentation provided by Newham Farm. We considered that the claim "Development at Newham Farm will provide Tesco with the opportunity to relocate, thus freeing up Garras Wharf to be redeveloped ..." implied that, were the 2007 AAP to be approved, Tesco would move from Garras Wharf to Higher Newham, and that as a consequence the redevelopment of Garras Wharf, prevented by Tesco's current location, could go ahead. We understood however, that the decision to relocate to Higher Newham could ultimately only be made by Tesco based on their own interests and needs, and after the relevant planning permission had been granted by the local authority. We also understood that, whether or not Tesco did relocate, Garras Wharf would not necessarily be redeveloped, and that any such redevelopment would be subject to separate planning proposals and permissions. We considered that the ad should have made it clearer that the proposal to relocate Tesco and the redevelopment of Garras Wharf were separate and conditional, and because it did not we concluded that the claim was misleading.

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

11. Not upheld

We noted that the claim opened with the statement "At Higher Newham Farm, we believe ...", and we considered that that statement made clear that the subsequent views expressed about the consultation process were the opinions of the advertiser. We considered that that was reinforced by the heading of that section of the brochure, which stated "What's your view?" and by other claims that followed, such as "We believe that a new, open and more inclusive debate needs to take place ...". Because we considered that the claim about the consultation process was clearly presented as the subjective view of the advertiser, we concluded that it 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.

Action

The ad must not appear again in its current form.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)