Skip to page content Skip to main menu

ASA Adjudication on The Duchy of Lancaster

Ad

A circular that included a cover letter and a brochure for a proposed village development.

The cover letter stated "You may remember that in September 2008 the Duchy delivered a questionnaire to all 320 households in the Parish of Cloughton and in mid November there was a series of workshops and public meetings where the future of Cloughton was discussed and a draft plan for the village drawn up. At the final public meeting, on 20 November 2008, the majority of the 80 or so residents in attendance agreed (via a 'show of hands'), that the plan should be taken forward as the basis for further discussion and wider consultation. Since then, the outcome of the November meetings has been 'written up' in the form of the document enclosed with this letter".

The front page of the brochure stated "Cloughton Village Plan. A STORY OF COMMUNITY, CONSENSUS & CHANGE". Text under the heading "The key issues arising from the workshops were:" stated "Whilst the consultation process was facilitated by the Duchy, the draft plan was assembled and agreed by local residents. The aim of the plan is to deliver a lasting legacy for the community ... Residents agree that the village is in decline (e.g. recent closure of the post office) and that new, affordable, homes are needed ... Cloughton will be a 'walkable' and vibrant village, rather than a sleepy suburb ... At the final public meeting, a show of hands revealed 52 in favour of, and 12 against (with 14 abstentions) taking the illustrative proposals to the next stage. There will be further consultation with the aim of having the plan adopted by the Council". Further text stated "The farm steading is on the High Street, in the heart of the village, where access and noise conflicts with residents ... Rather than consider the development of the Town Farm in isolation ... the Duchy saw a unique opportunity to take a step back, and look holistically at all potential development sites and issues in the village ... This document tells how the Village Plan was drawn up and summarises the results. With the help of a team of experts ... the community came together and, working very much from a 'blank sheet of paper', drew up a new vision for Cloughton, based on the actual fears and aspirations of residents themselves ... The draft plan (outlined later in this document) is the result of detailed consultation and has been designed and approved by the residents ... The plan whilst being facilitated by the Duchy (via the questionnaire, drop-in session and the workshop) has been resident led ... Although the draft plan has the approval of most residents, at this early stage it is purposely illustrative, forming the basis for further consultation". Text under the heading "Community Life" stated "However, there are clear and obvious signs of decline. The shop/post office was a focus of community life ... There is a recognised need for a plan, because based on current evidence, the village is very much in decline - a process which can be reversed, but prompt action is needed".

The brochure went on to describe the resident consultation and workshop process. Text under the following headings stated "Traffic and car parking: Residents want reduced traffic speeds and ideally fewer HGV's [sic] passing through the village ... New housing: Most residents accept that some new housing would benefit village life, particularly if located at Town Farm ... Shop & Post office: A shop/Post Office would be viable and sustainable if more people lived in the village and could walk to it or park nearby ... Village Facilities: There are mixed views on a village hall. All agreed that new facilities of some kind are needed .... There is an acceptance that the village is in decline, and there was a strong desire for change". Extracts from residents' comments stated "the new housing should look like Poundbury" and "Volume of traffic through village".

Further text under the heading "The Village Plan Workshop" stated "At the initial 'scene setting' public meeting, attended by about 50 people, the core team explained that the plan would have little value unless there was consensus, even though complete agreement may not be achieved ... The residents' team was split into four groups looking at transport, planning, environment and facilities ... Each group's individual plan was then combined into a composite plan. Not everyone agreed the plan, but on balance there was a view that it should be presented and taken forward to the second public meeting ... At the final public meeting, attended by about 90 people, more detail and explanation was provided in an hour and a quarter long presentation by the core team ... The public meeting agreed, by a show of hands, that the plan should proceed to the next stage. The results of the show of hands of the 78 residents were as follows: In support 52, Opposed 12, Abstained 14". A quotation attributed to "ESHA Architects, Bristol" stated "you decide what you want, and we'll draw it - you are the authors of this, and we are here to help; do you think the Borough Council will ignore the wishes of the village?"

The brochure went on to describe the status of the village plan. Text stated "This plan has been created by residents, with the help of professionals. It is a long-term plan, and is designed to be economically viable and sustainable. By nature it is a broad, illustrative plan. It is expected to evolve and become more detailed after consultation with the Borough Council, and a range of official agencies ... The aim of the plan is to reverse the decline of the village, and create a more balanced and stable community. The plan will leave a lasting legacy by providing investment in the new physical and social infrastructure, so needed to reinvigorate village life. It will protect the historic fabric, and attempt to help deal with flooding, traffic, parking and affordable housing ... If the village facilities are to survive into the future, then a substantial increase in population (at least 50%) is considered necessary to support them". Text on the back of the brochure stated "The aim of the plan is to reverse the decline of the village, and create a more balanced and stable community".

Issue

Residents of Cloughton Association challenged whether:

1. the reference to "consensus" in the claim "A STORY OF COMMUNITY, CONSENSUS & CHANGE" was misleading, because they believed there was no consensus;

2. the claims "the draft plan was assembled and agreed by the local residents", "the community ... drew up a new vision of Cloughton, based on the actual fears and aspirations of residents themselves", "the draft plan ... has been designed and approved by the residents", "the plan has been resident-led", "although the draft plan has the approval of most residents" and "this plan has been created by residents" were misleading, because the plan was pre-determined and could not be negotiated by residents despite opposition;

3. the claims "the residents agree the village is in decline", "there are clear and obvious signs of decline", "the village is very much in decline", "reverse the decline of the village" and "there is an acceptance that the village is in decline, and there was a strong desire for change" were misleading;

4. the claims in the brochure "a show of hands revealed 52 in favour of, and 12 against (with 14 abstentions) taking the illustrative proposals to the next stage" and "the public meeting agreed, by a show of hands, that the plan should proceed to the next stage" with the corresponding breakdown, and the claim in the cover letter that "the majority of the 80 or so residents agreed (via a show of hands) that the plan should be taken forward as the basis for further discussion and wide consultation" were misleading, because they had not included 40 votes that had not been counted;

5. the claim "with these changes in rural life, the community and fabric that is Cloughton is under threat" was misleading and could be substantiated;

6. the claim "the farm steading is on the High Street, in the heart of the village where ... noise conflicts with residents" was misleading, because they were not aware of any such issue with residents;

7. the claim "this document tells how the Village Plan was drawn up" was misleading;

8. the claim "residents want reduced traffic speeds" was misleading, because they believed residents wanted reduced through traffic rather than reduced speed;

9. the claim "most residents accept that some new housing would benefit village life" could be substantiated;

10. the claim "a shop/Post office would be viable and sustainable if more people lived in the village" was misleading, because they understood that a post office would be viable with a population increase of 100% compared to the 50% proposed increase;

11. the claim "there are mixed views on a village hall. All agreed that new facilities of some kind are needed" could be substantiated;

12. the quotation "the new housing should look like Poundbury" was misleadingly presented as a resident's opinion, whereas they believed it was the opinion of the advertiser;

13. the claims "the core team explained that the plan would have little value unless there was a consensus, even though complete agreement may not be achieved" and "you decide what you want, and we'll draw it - you are the authors of this" misrepresented what was said at the workshop;

14. the claim "Not everyone agreed the plan, but on balance there was a view that it should be presented and taken forward to the second public meeting" was misleading, because they believed it was the advertiser's decision to take it forward, rather than that of the workshop;

15. the claims "At the final public meeting, attended by about 90 people" and "at the final public meeting ... the majority of 80 or so residents" were misleading, because they believed the number of people at the meeting exceeded 120 people;

16. the claim "It will protect the historic fabric" was misleading, because they understood proposals suggested demolishing some existing buildings, one of which was labelled as having historic interest; and

17. the claim "If the village facilities are to survive into the future, then a substantial increase in population (at least 50%) is considered necessary to support them" could be substantiated.

CAP Code (Edition 11)

Response

1. The Duchy of Lancaster (Duchy) said they made efforts to canvass and record local opinion through household surveys, drop-in sessions and interactive workshops, and believed there was consensus based on the written and verbal feedback they received. Duchy said external experts involved in the process also believed they had actively encouraged, and incorporated into the design process, diverse views, opinions and objectives.

2. Duchy said the plan was not predetermined, and provided documentation from the November 2008 public meeting and September 2008 drop-in session and copies of the original questionnaires in support of the claim.

3. Duchy said 56% of comments received via the questionnaires related to the closure of the post office, the need for affordable housing, loss of other facilities and the ageing population, which from a long-term sustainability perspective had been taken as key indicators that the village was in decline. They said the need for future investment, facilities and expansion was demonstrated by local media coverage, copies of which were provided.

4. Duchy said they were not aware of the provenance of the 40 uncounted votes suggested by the complainant. They explained that they had made clear to those present at the meeting that a vote could not be recorded because it would not be representative of the views of the entire community, and the vote was therefore commuted to a 'show of hands' with the agreement of those present. Duchy said the 'show of hands' was counted and minuted by a communications consultancy who attended the meeting as independent observers.

5. Duchy said changes in rural life across the country were well documented in government reports, and explained that Cloughton was deemed to be under threat because the Town Farm Steading was no longer fit for modern agricultural purposes, forcing the tenant to relocate. Facilities such as the village shop and sub post office had recently disappeared, there was an ageing population and a lack of affordable housing for young people, which were key indicators of a rural village in danger of becoming unsustainable, and was therefore under threat.

6. Duchy explained that Town Farm was a Duchy agricultural asset sited in the centre of the village. They said noise conflicts with neighbours related to noises produced by the grain dryer and other machinery, as well as livestock, and had impacted on the commercial success of the business. They provided evidence in support of the claim.

7. Duchy said the claim was an accurate description of how the key elements of the plan were established, which in turn impacted on the scale and nature of the development. They provided documentation from architects involved in the Village Plan in support of the claim.

8. Duchy said the resident questionnaires showed that residents wanted reduced through traffic as well as reduced traffic speeds, and pointed out that they had proposed reconfiguring the linear shape of the village and introducing traffic calming measures in response to those concerns.

9. Duchy said they discussed the commercial viability of providing new community facilities at the workshops and public meeting, including the link between the provision of services and residential development. They felt that that point was understood by the local residents who attended those meetings. Duchy explained that 28% of the returned questionnaires made reference to local housing requirements.

10. Duchy said the claim was a summary of comments made by members of the public via the questionnaires and the drop-in session, and provided a letter from a previous owner of the village shop in support of the claim. They explained that the reference to a 50% increase in population mentioned elsewhere in the brochure referred to the provision required to pay for all of the community facilities proposed as a result of the consultation exercise, but that they were not aware of a proposed increase of 100%. Duchy said they were currently engaged in research on this issue but the full findings were not yet available.

11. Duchy said the questionnaires showed that there were residents who both did and did not want a village hall, and explained that the claim "All agreed that new facilities of some kind are needed" indicated that, despite a diversity of views, there was general support for the principle of investment and a long-term strategic plan for the village. Duchy provided copies of local media coverage on the issue in support of the claim.

12. Duchy explained that the consultative approach of interactive workshops and community input into the design scheme prior to the preparation and submission of a formal planning application was pioneered at Poundbury. Their architect had also been involved in Poundbury. Duchy said the term 'like Poundbury' was used to describe traditional architectural style using sympathetic and appropriate materials, and they had their own Residential Design Code that would govern the quality of any properties built in their name. Duchy provided copies of notes taken during the public meeting, which included a reference to Poundbury as a descriptor of style, scale and layout. They pointed out that the 'hanging quote' used in the brochure was not attributed to anyone and so could not have been misleading.

13. Duchy said the claims were direct quotes from the architect who facilitated one of the workshops with the aim of explaining that the process was interactive and continuous. They said the brochure clearly stated that the village plan was not a Duchy plan and formed the basis of further consultation. Duchy provided statements from the architect and another attendee, as well as notes taken during the meeting, in support of the claim.

14. Duchy explained that they appointed architects to assimilate the community's comments and requirements and sketch a 'composite' plan, which was adjusted throughout the workshops. At the end of the workshops the participants gave permission for the initial draft to be taken forward to the second public meeting. They made clear to the participants that the plan was subject to change, and it was agreed at the final, third public meeting that the conceptual plan would be discussed with statutory consultees, such as the local planning authority and highways agency, which might necessitate further changes. Duchy said they had always publicly stated that it would make the community aware of any final plan before submitting a formal planning application.

15. Duchy said the show of hands was counted and recorded by the communications consultant observing the meeting. They provided a copy of the notes taken by the consultant that showed a total of 93 residents present at the final meeting.

16. Duchy said the draft proposals did not include significant demolition, and the only buildings that would need to be pulled down were farm buildings that were neither protected nor of historic interest. They emphasised that the drawings in the plan had not been finalised as part of any scheme or planning application. Duchy said the claim had been taken out of context, and argued that the section in which it appeared made clear that the Village Plan was illustrative, and expected to evolve after discussion with the Borough Council and other official agencies. They pointed out that only once a conceptual scheme had been finalised and incorporated into the long-term planning strategy of the local area, could they move forward to prepare a formal planning application to the Borough Council, which in turn would be open to extensive consultation.

17. Duchy said the 50% figure arose from an initial viability study that they carried out, which sought to balance the cost of providing community facilities as required, with the revenue that might be generated by new housing provision. They said feedback from the former shop owner suggested that there was not enough demand for services within the village and virtually no passing trade, and consequently a population increase was necessary to give the village a sustainable future. They also provided a copy of their submission to Scarborough Borough Council (SBC) in support of the claim.

Assessment

1. Not upheld

The ASA noted that the first page of the brochure explained that the Village Plan had been drawn up on the basis of the comments made by residents at the workshops and public meetings, and through the questionnaires, and we considered that it was clear that the reference to "consensus" on the title page referred to that consultation process. We did not consider that that term implied that there was unanimous consensus, that every resident in the village agreed with the plan, rather that the draft plan attempted to incorporate the general views expressed during the consultation process. We noted that the brochure made clear a number of times that complete agreement had not been reached. We therefore concluded that the reference to consensus was not misleading.

2. Not upheld

We noted that the documentation provided showed that the meetings and workshops had been introduced as a resident-led process, and that comments made by residents did correlate with aspects of the Village Plan. We also noted that that documentation showed that the plan had been amended on the basis of residents' comments made during the consultation process, and we therefore concluded that the claims were not misleading.

We investigated points 1 and 2 under CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation) and 7.1 (Truthfulness) but did not find them in breach.

3. Upheld

We noted the factors that the Duchy considered were indicators of the village's decline. However, we also noted that although the residents had made suggestions about what improvements they would like in the village, and that some had expressed concern about the future of the village, they had not specifically stated that they believed the village was in decline. We also noted that some residents were satisfied with the village in its current situation. We considered that the references to the village's decline in the brochure, and in particular the claims "residents agree the village is in decline" and "there is an acceptance that the village is in decline" could give a misleading impression about the views of the residents, and we therefore concluded that the claims should not appear again.

4. Upheld

We noted that the minutes of the meeting showed that of the 93 residents present, 52 indicated support for the draft plan at that stage, 12 were opposed to the plan and 14 abstained. However, we also noted that a further 15 residents chose not to take part at all. Although we acknowledged that this number was less than the 40 hands that the complainant suggested had not been counted, we considered that, when added to the opposition and abstention show of hands, it suggested that there were a possible 41 residents who were either undecided or not in agreement that the plan should be taken forward. We therefore concluded that, on this point, the claims in the brochure, which gave the breakdown of the show of hands but omitted details of the 15 residents who had not taken part, were misleading. However, we considered that the more general claim in the cover letter that "the majority of the 80 or so residents agreed (via a show of hands) that the plan should be taken forward as the basis for further discussion and wider consultation" was not misleading.  

5. Upheld

We considered that consumers would understand the claim "... the community and fabric that is Cloughton is under threat" to mean that the very existence of the village was vulnerable and in danger. We noted that the claim was contextualised in the ad by reference to "changes in modern farming methods, coping with increased traffic, an ageing population and ... the loss of local facilities". However, we also noted that we had not seen evidence that demonstrated that the existence of Cloughton was endangered. We considered that the claim was likely to be an exaggeration and therefore concluded that it was misleading.

On points 3, 4 and 5 the ad breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation) and 7.1 (Truthfulness).

6. Not upheld

We noted that the documentation provided by the Duchy showed that Town Steading Farm had received complaints from residents about noise caused by machinery, livestock and traffic movements. We therefore concluded that the claim was not misleading.

7. Not upheld

We acknowledged that some residents would be opposed to the development of Cloughton and the process by which the village plan was formed. However, we considered that the documentation provided, including the meeting minutes and statements from the architects and other attendees, demonstrated that the brochure's description of the resident questionnaires, workshops and public meetings was an accurate reflection of the processes by which the Village Plan was drawn up. We therefore concluded that the claim was not misleading.

8. Not upheld

We noted that the questionnaires and workshop notes showed that residents were concerned about the speeds at which traffic passed through the village, as well as the volume of traffic, and that many were interested in calming measures that might help solve the problem of traffic speed. We also noted that the brochure did refer to residents' concerns about the number of HGVs currently passing through Cloughton, and the possible increase in traffic that development could bring, and we therefore concluded that the ad did not give a misleading impression about residents' views on this subject.

We investigated points 6, 7 and 8 under CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation) and 7.1 (Truthfulness) but did not find them in breach.

9. Upheld

We noted that the claim "Most residents accept that some new housing would benefit village life" appeared in the section describing how residents' views were sought via questionnaires and workshops, and we considered, in that context, it was clear that the claim related to comments made by residents through those forums. However, we also noted that of the 310 surveys delivered to residents only 64 were returned, of which 28 made reference to new housing, and that comments ranged from support for affordable housing to concern about the number of new houses needed in the village and opposition to any further housing development. We noted from the documentation provided that a further six comments about housing had been made at a September drop in session, which we understood were in support of the affordable housing for young people in the village. Nevertheless, we considered that the recorded comments did not appear to represent the majority view of the residents who participated in the questionnaire or workshop, and we therefore concluded that the claim was misleading.

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

10. Not upheld

We noted that the figure of 50%, referred to by the complainant, related to a different claim in the brochure about the provision for all community facilities, as opposed to the village shop/post office only. We noted that both the Duchy and the complainant acknowledged that a post office and shop would be viable with an increase in the population of the village, although they disagreed on the extent of the increase that would be necessary. We therefore concluded that the claim "a shop/post office would be viable and sustainable if more people lived in the village" was not misleading.

11. Not upheld

We noted that the claim appeared in the section describing the questionnaire and workshop process, and we considered that it was clear therefore that the claim related to comments made by residents through those forums. We understood from the documentation provided that there appeared to be a consensus that community facilities were needed but that there was disagreement about what form those facilities should take and whether there should be a village hall. We therefore concluded that on this point the ad was not misleading.

We investigated points 10 and 11 under CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation) and 7.1 (Truthfulness) but did not find them in breach.

12. Upheld

We noted Duchy's response. However, we also noted that the quote about Poundbury appeared in the section detailing the main concerns expressed by residents, and was featured alongside other quotations and copies of handwritten extracts taken from the questionnaires. We considered that, in that context, consumers were likely to understand the claim "the new housing should be like Poundbury" to be the view of a resident. Because we understood that that was not the case we concluded that the claim was misleading.

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

13. Not upheld

We noted that the claim "you decide what you want, and we'll draw it - you are the authors of this" was attributed to one of ESHA Architects, and we also noted that the documentation provided showed that both claims had been spoken by that architect at the start of one of the November public meetings. We understood from the statements provided by the architects that they had drawn up the village plan on the basis of comments made by residents during the interactive workshop. We acknowledged that some residents might not agree with the consultation process or feel that their views had been taken into account. However, because we considered that the claims were representative of what was said at the workshop, 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.

14. Upheld

We understood from the meeting notes provided that the claim referred to the workshop held on 18 November 2008. However, we also noted that the meeting notes did not record the residents' overall agreement to take the plan forward to the next public meeting. We acknowledged that the ad made clear that some residents had disagreed with the plan, and that it was subject to change. Nevertheless, because we could not ascertain that the residents had agreed, on balance, that the plan should be taken forward to the next meeting, we concluded that the claim was misleading.

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

15. Not upheld

We noted that the meeting notes recorded that 93 residents attended the final meeting, and that that figure correlated with the number of responses to the show of hands taken at the end of the meeting. We noted that the complainant believed that over 120 people had attended the meeting, although they had not provided evidence in support of that figure. Because we considered that the documentation provided by Duchy showed that 93 residents had attended the final meeting, we concluded that the claims were not misleading.

16. Not upheld

We noted that the Village Plan was a draft proposal that had yet to be finalised, and that, at present, the demolition of some farm buildings would be included in the proposal. We understood that the farm buildings were sited in a conservation area, and that consent would therefore be needed from the Local Authority before any demolition could take place. We also understood, however, that the farm buildings were not listed as being of historic interest. We therefore concluded that the claim was not misleading.

We investigated points 15 and 16 under CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation) and 7.1 (Truthfulness) but did not find them in breach.

17. Upheld

We noted Duchy's argument that the figure of 50% was based on an earlier viability study that they had carried out. We also noted, however, that whilst the SBC submission suggested that a population increase of around 50% would be needed to support village facilites, that document was dated July 2009. We considered that the Duchy should have held documentation to support the claim at the time the ad appeared, and because we had not seen evidence from the time the claim was made that showed that a population increase of at least 50% was needed to support village facilities, we concluded that the claim had not been substantiated.

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)