ASA Adjudication on Volkswind UK Ltd

Ad

Three circulars promoted a wind farm development.

a. One was headed "Notice of Public Exhibition" and showed photomontages of the proposed turbines in the surrounding landscape, including a view of West Haddon. Text stated "Volkswind UK invites you to view proposals for a wind energy development of five turbines ... ".

b. A second showed views of The Manor House at Ashby St Ledgers, Watford village and Borough Hill, Daventry. In the view of Watford village, the turbine was partially obscured by a wall and trees.

c. A third was headed "Watford Lodge Wind Farm Community Newsletter" and showed a montage of the proposed turbines in the landscape. Text on the image stated "Predicted view of the wind farm from West Haddon".

Issue

The complainant challenged whether:

1. the photomontage in ad (a) showing the view of West Haddon;

2. the photomontage in ad (b) showing the view of Watford village, and

3. the photomontage in ad (c)

were misleading and gave an inaccurate impression of the size of the turbines.

CAP Code (Edition 11)

Response

1. & 2. Volkswind UK Ltd (Volkswind) said the photomontages in ads (a) and (b) were prepared by professional landscape architects to the industry standard best practice as outlined in the Landscape Institute and Scottish Natural Heritages Visual Representation of Windfarms Good Practice Guidance (2006). They said the photomontages were accurately produced using Resoft Windfarm software which had been designed to reflect the best practice guidance. They said the software combined ordnance survey landform data with ordnance survey mapping data, both of which were geo-referenced using the national grid reference system, a wireframe model was then produced by computer. In order to create an accurate photomontage the grid reference of where the photograph was taken was needed as well as the grid reference of several stationary elements visible in the photograph.

The software then used height data to insert markers into the mapping software which indicated the locations of the features identified in the field. In order to check the accuracy of the image the marker points identified had to line up accurately with the elements as they appeared in the photograph. The photograph was then rendered so that the wireframe turbines were replaced with photorealistic images of the turbine model (the Nordex N90), which had a total overall height of 125m.

Volkswind pointed out that given the complexity of the software and the nature of the mapping information used in the generation of the photomontage they could not be 100% accurate. They sent a picture of the predicted view of Burton Wold wind farm from May 2003 and the actual view photographed in August 2006.

3. Volkswind said ad (c) was sent to residents to introduce the scheme in January 2009 and was an initial draft that was superseded by the photomontage showing the view of West Haddon in ad (a).

Assessment

1. & 2. Not upheld

The ASA noted that the software used to create the photomontages conformed to industry standards. We noted the predicted view of a similar site showed small differences when compared with the actual view, in that some of the turbines appeared slightly smaller, but considered that those small differences did not create an overall misleading impression of the impact of the wind farm on the landscape.

Although we noted the photomontage would not be 100% accurate, because the turbines were seen from afar any inaccuracy would represent a very small distance on the surface of the image. Because of that, and because the photomontage had been produced to industry standards we concluded ad (a) was not misleading.

Although we noted the view of Watford village in the photomontage in ad (b) was mapped from a low vantage point, we did not see evidence to suggest that the scale of the turbine had been inaccurately represented. Because the photomontage had been produced using industry standard software, we therefore concluded ad (b) was not misleading.

We investigated ads (a) and (b) under CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation) and 7.1 (Truthfulness) but did not find them in breach.

3. Upheld

We noted ad (c) was a draft that had been sent to residents and was not produced to industry standards. We noted the ad showed the same view of West Haddon as ad (a). However, we noted the turbine nearest the electricity pylon in ad (c) was smaller than the pylon, but that in the photomontage in ad (a) the turbine nearest the pylon was larger than the pylon. Although we welcomed Volkswind's use of industry standard software in the later photomontage, because one of the turbines appeared smaller in ad (c) than ad (a), we concluded ad (c) was misleading.

Ad (c) breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation) and 7.1 (Truthfulness).

Action

No further action necessary in respect of ads (a) and (b). Ad (c) must not appear again in its current form.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)