ASA Adjudication on AMEC plc

Ad

A circular, for AMEC Wind Energy's Edinbane Wind Farm Proposal, headlined "EDINBANE WIND FARM UPDATE (September 2006)". The first page showed a map of the proposed site and the second page showed a picture of the nearby loch with the wind turbines superimposed into their proposed setting. Text under the heading "The Additional Environmental Work" stated " ... The results of all the environmental work carried out suggest that the only expected significant effects from the wind farm relate to its visual appearance although these significant effects will be limited to particular locations within five kilometres of the wind farm ...". Text under the heading "Community Benefit" stated " ... I would like to close by offering our continued commitment to creating a safe and effective wind farm at Edinbane and Glen Vic Askill that will add value to local communities for 20 years to come ...".

Issue

Skye Wind Farm Action Group (SWAG) challenged:

1. whether the picture showing the loch and the proposed turbines was misleading, because they believed it gave a false indication of the scale of the development;

2. the claim " ... The results of all the environmental work carried out suggest that the only expected significant effects from the wind farm relate to its visual appearance although these significant effects will be limited to particular locations within five kilometres of the wind farm ..." was misleading, because they believed documents by both Scottish National Heritage (SNH) and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) showed the turbines posed a threat to birds, in particular Golden Eagles.

3. the claim " ... I would like to close by offering our continued commitment to creating a safe and effective wind farm at Edinbane and Glen Vic Askill that will add value to local communities for 20 years to come ..." was misleading, because an independent survey into the proposed wind farm had predicted adverse economic effects on the community.

CAP Code (Edition 11)

Response

AMEC Wind Energy (AMEC) said they believed the circular was a public notice, not a marketing communication.  They said the circular was intended to summarise the revised planning submission submitted to the Highland Council and to update the local community on the current status of the proposal.  They explained that the conclusions outlined in the circular were the result of research, field study work and literature reviews by highly qualified independent consultants that had been carried out for the purposes of the planning application.  AMEC pointed out that recipients of the circular were local residents who were aware of the arguments for and against the wind farm and maintained that the content of the circular was therefore unlikely to mislead.

1. AMEC said the landscape and visual figures included in the planning submission were produced by independent consultants in accordance with the appropriate guidelines for wind farm planning applications (The Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment).  They sent the relevant section of the planning submission, titled "Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment Amendment and Supplementary Information" to the ASA.  AMEC also sent a document showing three images: a photograph of the current view from the Edinbane campsite, a computer generated wireframe showing the position of the wind farm and a photomontage of the view once the construction of the wind farm was complete.  The document also listed the viewpoint parameters: the grid reference, elevation, distance to the nearest turbine, distance to the nearest visible turbine, the angle of the view, the viewing distance and the number of hubs and blade tips visible.

AMEC said the image had been scaled down to fit the circular, but they had ensured that the proportions of the image remained the same.  They added that the circular made clear that a larger version of the photomontage was available for viewing at the local Council offices and Post Offices.  AMEC said the planning submission was reviewed by the Highland Council and SNH and neither organisation had expressed concern about the landscape and visual materials submitted.  

2. AMEC said the claim was consistent with the findings of their environmental work which had concluded that the revised planning proposal met the standards of acceptability specified by SNH.  They sent the relevant section of the planning submission to show that the statement was accurate.  AMEC said, at the time the circular was published, in September 2006, neither RSPB Scotland nor SNH had raised any concerns about the content of the revised planning proposal.    

3. AMEC submitted the relevant section of the planning submission and an e-mail from the Highland Renewable Energy Group in support of the claim.  They considered that the claim demonstrated their commitment to ensuring that the wind farm would provide economic benefits to the local community.  

AMEC said the planning submission highlighted the principal socio-economic effects they expected to be generated by the wind farm.  They outlined the proposed arrangements for local community benefit payments and explained their local content policy which was to give priority to local businesses in the tender process and to source the goods and materials for the proposed wind farm locally.  They believed their action would contribute to the local economy.  AMEC also sent a report by a set of independent consultants on the potential effects of the windfarm on the local tourism economy.  The report sought to forecast the likely effect of the wind farm at Edinbane by examining the effects on tourism of the presence of wind farms at other similar locations within the Highlands, the rest of Scotland and the UK in general.  AMEC sent an email from a property developer as support for their belief that house prices would not be affected by the presence of a wind farm.

AMEC said they were not aware of any significant negative effects on the economies of areas where wind farms were constructed and none of their statutory consultees nor the planning authority had raised concerns about the threat of a negative economic impact.  They had therefore concluded that the wind farm would benefit the economy of the area during its construction and operational lifetime of 20 years.  They argued that the report submitted by the complainant's, which was published in 2002, was out of date and used without the author's permission.     

Assessment

We understood that the circular was intended to summarise the content of the revised planning submission, known as the Second Amended Proposal.  We noted AMEC's argument that the newsletter was a public notice.  We nevertheless considered that, because it was distributed to local residents, it constituted advertising material.

1. Not upheld

The ASA noted AMEC had produced the photomontage included in the planning submission in accordance with the appropriate guidelines, and understood that they had reduced the scale of that image in order to reproduce it in the circular.  Although we considered that the size of the photomontage in the circular would have made it difficult for some readers to appreciate what the wind farm would look like, we noted text immediately above it indicated different locations where readers could see larger scale versions.

We concluded that the photomontage was unlikely to give a misleading impression of the scale of the development.

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

2. Not upheld

We understood that AMEC had engaged consultant ornithologists to carry out an assessment of the collision and displacement risks to raptors, using data collected by a local ornithologist and a different set of environmental consultants.

We noted the level of acceptability for collision and disturbance risk was determined in accordance with guidelines issued by SNH and advice from consultant ornithologists.  We understood from the relevant section of the planning submission that both the collision and disturbance risk assessment to golden eagles, hen harriers and white-tailed eagles concluded that the wind farm presented an acceptable level of risk.  

SWAG maintained that SNH and the RSPB continued to object to the Second Amended Proposal because of concerns about the risk to bird populations.  We understood however that the objections of SNH and RSPB, copies of which were submitted by SWAG, post-dated the publication of the circular.  We considered that the accuracy of the claims made in the circular needed to be assessed as at the time of publication.  

We noted the claim was extracted from the Supplementary Environmental Information section of the Second Amended Proposal and stated "Significant visual effects have been contained to particular locations within 5 km of the wind farm ...".

We concluded that the view expressed in the circular represented the conclusions of the planning submission in relation to environmental concerns, was correct at the time of publication of the circular and was therefore unlikely to mislead.

On this point, we investigated the circular under CAP Code clauses 3.2 (Division of informed opinion), 7.1 (Truthfulness) and 49.3 (Environmental claims) but did not find it in breach.

3. Not upheld

We noted the planning submission indicated that there would be benefits to the local community during the 12-18 month construction period and during the 20 year life of the project.  We understood that the economic benefits referred to in the circular were intended to include jobs generated directly and indirectly through the construction of the project and income in the form of rent and royalties paid to landowners.  AMEC argued that these measures demonstrated their commitment to a community that was fully aware of their actions.    

SWAG submitted a study carried out by a firm of chartered surveyors which indicated that economic benefits to the area might be offset by the impact of the wind farm on tourism and property prices.  We nevertheless noted the report was dated 2002 and related to an earlier proposal for the Edinbane wind farm which had more turbines and greater generating capacity.  We noted AMEC considered that the findings were therefore irrelevant to the consideration of the current proposal.

We noted the report commissioned by AMEC on the potential effects on the tourism economy indicated that there was no evidence to support the contention that the presence of wind farms led to a drop in tourism figures.  The report concluded that the impact of the wind farm on tourism was unlikely to be significant.   

We considered that most readers were likely to understand that the views expressed in the circular were a statement of AMEC's commitment to add value to the local community through its local procurement policy and local community payments.  Because AMEC had committed to put in place a local content policy and system of local payments that they expected to outweigh any possible downsides to the proposed windfarm, we concluded that the claim was unlikely to mislead.

On this point, we investigated the ad under CAP Code clauses 3.2 (Division of informed opinion) and 7.1 (Truthfulness) but did not find it in breach.

Action

No further action necessary.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)