ASA Adjudication on Pro Wind Alliance

Ad

A magazine ad by a pro wind energy group stated "ProWA Pro Wind Alliance (Harborough District) we say 'Yes' to Swinford Windfarm! … A full Environmental Impact Assessment has been prepared. There are no significant impacts on birds, bats or other wildlife … Modern windfarms are not noisy … turbines have become much quieter in recent years."

Issue

The Stop Swinford Wind Farm Action Group (SSWFAG) challenged whether the claim:

1. "A full Environmental Impact Assessment has been prepared" was misleading, because they believed the local planning authority had concluded that it was incomplete;

2. "There are no significant impacts on birds, bats or other wildlife" was misleading and could be substantiated especially because wind farms posed a significant threat to bats;

3. "Modern windfarms are not noisy" was misleading and could be substantiated.

CAP Code (Edition 11)

Response

The Pro Wind Alliance (ProWA) said they had taken responsible steps to ensure that the ad was accurate and had consulted the CAP Copy Advice team before publishing the ad.

1. ProWA said the planning application and impact assessment had been checked at the beginning of August when the ads were prepared and there was nothing on Harborough District Council's file that implied the Environmental Statement (ES) was incomplete. ProWA pointed out that the appropriate assessing body had set Planning Committee dates (the last being 7 October) based on information available. They considered that that demonstrated that a full ES was submitted in accordance with the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process.  They said additional information could be requested by local authorities on planning applications but that did not make an EIA invalid; it was usual for information to be requested throughout the determination period.

2. ProWA pointed out that the EIA stated that there would be no significant impacts on birds, bats and other wildlife. They said the claim was specific to the Swinford development and did not suggest there would be no impact on wildlife from any wind farm. They pointed out that on the issue of ecology the report stated: "It is considered that Swinford windfarm will not have a significant impact on the nature conservation value of the area and, in relation to ornithology, 'The proposed Swinford windfarm is therefore predicted to have no significant effects on birds'."

3. ProWA said there were several 'studies' and references on the issue of noise and wind farms. They accepted that wind turbines emitted noise, but maintained that people could hear the noise only if they were very close to the site. They pointed out that animals could graze near a turbine site and a conversation could be held beneath a turbine. ProWA believed anti-wind farm protesters often stated that turbines were so noisy people would be able to hear them from their homes. They maintained, however, that turbines had to be built over 600 metres away from dwellings. They pointed out that the sound of turbines was usually masked by background noise, for instance, in the case of Swinford, the nearby M1 motorway, and the sound of the wind itself.

ProWA said noise disturbance was obviously subjective but they were trying to highlight that modern turbines, with advances in technology, were much quieter than the older ones that had gear boxes. They also pointed out that the ads stated that wind farms had to comply with environmental health and other strict planning guidelines. ProWA believed the claim, when read in the context of the ad, made their point clearly. They sent copies of several documents, which they believed supported their case including a copy of a letter from Malcolm Wicks MP, Minister of State for Energy, covering the issue of noise.

Assessment

1. Not upheld

The ASA noted the SSWFAG had provided a letter from their environmental consultants who pointed out that there were omissions from the visual impact section of the ES. We understood that the Council had requested further information in relation to the development, but had not done so under the EIA regulations.  As such, we understood that the EIA was considered to be complete. We therefore concluded that the claim was unlikely to mislead.

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. Not upheld

We noted the claim appeared immediately after the claim "A full Environmental Impact Assessment has been prepared" and clearly referred to the content of the assessment. We considered that readers were unlikely to infer from the claim that there would be absolutely no impact on wildlife. Although we noted SSWFAG's assertion that there was evidence of wind farms having an impact on wildlife, we considered that they had not presented adequate evidence to question the findings of the EIA specifically in relation to the Swinford development. Because the claim was qualified and made clear that it was based on the findings of the EIA, we concluded that the ad was unlikely to mislead.

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

3. Not upheld

We noted ProWA maintained they intended their claim to inform readers that newer designs of wind turbines were notably quieter than older ones.  We understood that even modern wind turbines produced noise emissions that were audible to those in close proximity to a wind farm and that in some cases there had been complaints made to statutory bodies about the nuisance.  We noted the section of the ad in which the challenged claim appeared also stated "turbines have become much quieter in recent years".   We considered that readers would appreciate that 'noisy' was a subjective concept and would see the claim as a comparison with older turbines.  We considered readers were unlikely to infer from the ad that wind turbines emitted no noise and concluded that the ad was unlikely to mislead.

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

No further action necessary.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)