ASA Adjudication on Against Wind Farm at Low Spinney

Ad

A circular, in opposition to a proposed wind farm development, was entitled "Campaign Update- Application Imminent. Volume 4 - Feb 2009". Text underneath made a number of claims about Broadview Energy's proposed wind farm development in Low Spinney.

Issue

Broadview Energy Ltd objected that:

1. the claim "We are a group of local people trying to prevent wind farm developers erecting inefficient wind turbines ..." was misleading and could be substantiated, because the turbines would not be inefficient;

2. the claim "Broadview Energy, the startup [sic] company behind the Low Spinney Wind Farm development" was misleading because they were incorporated in 2003 and had been active in the renewable energy sector ever since;

3. the claim "Other worrying news is that it's probable that because of their proximity to Bruntingthorpe airfield, they will have to fit each of the turbine blades with a red light. This means that at night we're going to have four 90m diameter Catherine wheels to pollute our night sky" was misleading, because no lights would need to be fixed to the blades, and

4. the claim "Another Broadview bombshell is that they told us they have approached a number of other local landowners with a view to extending the wind farm - it seems that four turbines are just not enough - they'd prefer ten or eleven" was misleading, because there were no plans to extend the scheme.

CAP Code (Edition 11)

Response

1. Against Wind Farm at Low Spinney (AWFALS) said the claim was a statement of opinion. They maintained that it was reasonable to consider that wind farms were inefficient from a number of perspectives, for instance, they generated only very small amounts of electricity when compared with nuclear power. They said the surface area of the UK was a scarce resource and maintained that wind energy required 600 times more surface area for wind power to generate the energy of an equivalent nuclear or conventional power station.

2. AWFALS maintained that Broadview Energys incorporation in 2003 was not evidence of a viable, mature business and believed that they should still be considered to be a start-up company as they did not yet have a mechanism for generating income. AWFALS maintained that they were promoting wind farms and were financing their operations through venture capital as they had not actually built a wind energy development. AWFALS maintained that a mature, non-start-up business was self-sustaining and did not need periodic injections of cash.

3. AWFALS maintained that, at the time the newsletter was published, the information used was the best available. They acknowledged that they had since discovered that red lights were required only for the highest stationary point and not the blades.

4. AWFALS maintained that the Managing Director of Broadview Energy made statements to one of their members at a consultation event to the effect that it was standard practice to approach other landowners to attempt to expand the scheme. They said he later denied those statements following the publication of the newsletter. Furthermore, AWFALS believed that, in stating that there were no plans to extend the scheme, Broadview Energy ignored the Environmental Statement they had submitted to Harborough District Council which, AWFALS believed documented attempts to build six turbines on to the site instead of four.

Assessment

1. Upheld

The ASA noted AWFALS assertion that they based their view on several perspectives, which, they maintained, supported their assertion that the wind turbines could be considered inefficient. Although we noted AWFALS specifically cited the comparative land use of different forms of generation to support the claim, we considered that readers were likely to understand the claim to relate to whether wind turbines were an efficient way of producing electricity. Because we had not seen sufficient evidence to support its likely interpretation, we concluded that the ad was likely to mislead.

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

2. Upheld

We understood the definition of the term start-up company was a newly created company in a stage of development. Although we noted AWFALS point that Broadview Energy had yet to build a development that would guarantee an income stream and that technically, they were still in a development stage, we considered that readers were likely to infer from the claim only that Broadview Energy were a recently created company. Because we noted Broadview Energy had been incorporated in 2003 and had been operating for several years, we concluded that the claim was likely to mislead.

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

3. Upheld

We noted the Civil Aviation Authority guidelines published in 2006 made clear the requirement that where aviation lighting was required, the red light should be placed at the top of the wind turbines tower and did not refer to lighting fixed to the blades. We noted AWFALS had now acknowledged that was the case. We concluded that the claim was likely to mislead.

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

4. Upheld

We noted AWFALS point that the environmental statement for the development indicated that there were six turbines proposed for the site at Low Spinney and that they believed that the Broadview Energy Managing Director had indicated that they wanted to build more. We noted Broadview Energy in turn denied that that was the case and maintained that it was common for developers to correspond with land owners in the early stages of the development to establish land ownership and general interest. Although we noted the controversy over whether Broadview Energy wanted to extend the development, we noted the claim stated that Broadview Energy would ... prefer ten or eleven turbines". We considered that readers were likely to infer from the claim that Broadview Energy had specific plans to attempt to extend the development in that way. Because we had not seen sufficient evidence to demonstrate that that was the case, we concluded that AWFALS had not substantiated the claim.

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

Action

The ad must not appear again in its current form.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)