Background
Summary of Council decision:
Seven issues were investigated, of which one was Upheld and six were Not upheld.
Ad description
A leaflet for Rumbletonrig Wind Farm:
Text stated "Earlier in the year we announced plans for a wind farm on farmland at Rumbletonrig, over 2km west of the village of Greenlaw ... Environmental benefits ... This will reduce the overall carbon footprint in the Scottish Borders and contribute to tackling climate change ... Communities in closest proximity to the wind farm are set to benefit from one-off funding of £40,000 from TCI Renewables ... The funding on offer will be used to provide programmes to increase employment in the area local to the wind farm - with a specific focus on youth employment - as well as delivering wider economic benefits for business ... Bespoke training programmes will aim to meet the needs of local unemployed people and offer financial incentives to allow businesses to provide employment opportunities as well as offering modern apprenticeships ... Greenlaw, Hume and the surrounding Berwickshire communities are set to benefit from new playing facilities should the wind farm be consented after a Memorandum of Understanding was signed between TCI Renewables and Greenlaw Football Club. The Club will receive a £150,000 contribution to deliver a Third Generation (3G) pitch, or similar, in Greenlaw for football and other community uses ... AGHAST ... You may have seen a leaflet from AGHAST, a group formed to oppose the wind farm development. Following the intervention of the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) AGHAST has agreed not to repeat the following claims from their leaflet, which we believe is an acknowledgment that they were misleading: There is a link between wind turbines and health issues Some properties may become unsellable as a result of nearby wind farms There is a general acceptance that wind farms should not be constructed within 2 km or 2.5 km of any settlement ... A copy of the letter from the ASA is available on our project website at www.rumbletonrigwindfarm.com ...
It is possible to stand underneath a wind turbine and hold a conversation without having to raise your voice. As wind speed rises the noise of the wind masks the noise made by wind turbines ... Will there be more pylons? Electricity generated by the wind farm is likely to be exported to the grid via a line supported by wooden poles, as above". An image of a wooden electricity pole on the side of a road accompanied the relevant text.
Issue
One complainant challenged whether:
1. the claim "over 2km west of the village of Greenlaw" was misleading and could be substantiated;
2. the claim "This will reduce the overall carbon footprint in the Scottish Borders" was misleading and could be substantiated, because they understood that the Scottish Borders were already carbon neutral, with the total energy consumption in the area being less than it produced from renewable sources, and because they understood that disturbance of soils and importing of concrete for foundations could cause an increase in the area's carbon footprint;
3. the claims regarding £40,000 funding were misleading, because they exaggerated the potential benefits;
4. the claims regarding the £150,000 contribution were misleading, because they understood that the Greenland and Hume Community Council had not yet given their permission for the 3G football pitch;
5. the claims regarding AGHAST's withdrawn ad were misleading, because they implied that there was no link between wind farms and health, property prices and offsets;
6. the claim "It is possible to stand underneath a wind turbine and hold a conversation without having to raise your voice" was misleading, because they understood that the noise from wind turbines affected the area some distance away from the foot of the turbine, rather than the foot of the turbine itself; and
7. the image of the electricity pole was misleading, because they understood that it could not carry the output from a wind farm.
Response
1. TCI Renewables Ltd said the statement was accompanied by two maps that showed the previous layout and the revised layout of the turbines. They provided two maps that were produced by the Scottish Borders Council that illustrated the settlement plan boundary for Greenlaw; the currently adopted plan as defined in the Consolidated Local Plan 2011 and a proposed plan within the Proposed Local Plan 2013. TCI said in measuring the distance, they defined the edge of the village using the Local Plan, a copy of which was supplied. They noted that the measured distance from the edge of Greenlaw to Rumbletonrig steading was 2942 metres (m) according to this document and from the edge of Greenlaw to the nearest turbine was 2053 m. They were aware that there were proposed amendments to the settlement profile of Greenlaw, but said the nearest turbine from the edge of Greenlaw would still be 2053 m. They provided a map showing the local plans and the current turbine layout, and said this showed that Greenlaw, as defined by the Scottish Borders Council, was over two kilometres (km) from any proposed wind turbine.
They noted that the Greenlaw and Hume Community Council area encompassed a considerably larger geographical area that included other settlements other than Greenlaw, including Hume, but did not believe this was relevant to the claim.
In response to the complainant's comment that there were several properties that were closer than 2 km, including some on Edinburgh Road, within the town boundary markers, TCI Renewables said the Greenlaw settlement sign on the Edinburgh Road sat within the 'Scottish Borders Local Plan Boundary' and was therefore over 2 km from any turbine. They noted that there were individual properties situated in the open countryside around Greenlaw, but said they lay outside the defined settlement boundary and therefore were not treated as dwellings within the adjacent settlement.
2. TCI Renewables supplied evidence that described emissions of wind farms through all phases of construction, from component manufacturing to assembly, delivery, installation and operation, which suggested that wind farms typically became energy neutral after approximately eight months of operation and there were significant potential reductions in emissions in the long term. They acknowledged that these were projections based on other developments and said they had yet to finalise what turbines they would use on their site.
TCI Renewables noted that the Scottish Government had produced a methodology for incorporating the fact that some large-scale wind farm development proposals in Scotland were sited on peat lands and those soils represented large stores of terrestrial carbon into carbon considerations. They said that while the Scottish Government's analysis showed that establishing wind farms on these organic soils could increase the carbon pay-back time, it only applied to peats and other organic soils. They provided draft copies of surveys by an external consultant, which described the soils at the Rumbletonrig and indicated that the disturbance of soils during the construction of the Rumbletonrig Wind Farm would not lead to any significant loss of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, nor would it significantly restrict the site's future capability to store carbon, and it was not necessary to consider this in the life-cycle analyses (LCA) calculations as it would not add to the carbon footprint as claimed.
3. TCI Renewables said the benefits related to a proposed link-up between them, Borders College, Scottish Borders Chamber of Commerce and the Federation of Small Businesses, should the wind farm be consented. They said the leaflet clearly set out the uses of the funding in partnership with these organisations, including employment benefits and training schemes. They said the scheme was based on a signed Memorandum of Understanding between these partners. They provided a copy of an e-mail from a member of the Skills Development Scotland Co. Ltd, which referred to the £40,000 funding and stated "... By providing additionality to existing programmes of delivery, this benefit can create conditions that would make it easier for businesses to engage in the youth employment agenda, as well as supporting young people. Obviously the partnership needs to work with the business community to ensure they provide the commitment, investment and support to enable sustainable opportunities for young people and the wider economy in the medium to long term".
They provided the signed Memorandum of Understanding, which confirmed the proposed partnership. They also provided a draft document that suggested how the money might be spent to deliver local benefits, including how the organisations intended to use the £40,000 alongside other funds to increase employability within the Berwickshire area by engaging with young people and local businesses.
4. TCI Renewables said this proposed contribution was based on a Memorandum of Understanding between them and Greenlaw Football Club, and would be donated if the wind farm was given consent. They provided a copy of the signed Memorandum that stated TCI would pay £150,000 to Greenlaw Football Club no later than 30 days from the date of the commissioning of the Rumbletonrig Wind Farm and said, while the location currently occupied by the football club would be the most sensible place for a 3G pitch, there would be other locations in or around Greenlaw where the facility could be provided in the unlikely event that the Community Council should refuse permission on the current site. They said they could see no reason or evidence to lead them to believe that an elected community council with fiduciary obligations to its constituents, as landlord, would seek to prevent such a clear community benefit from proceeding.
TCI Renewables said it was for Greenlaw Football Club to determine the most appropriate location in Greenlaw for this facility and should they select an alternative location that was not owned by Greenlaw & Hume Community Council, the Community Council's permission would not be required. They said if an alternative location became necessary, due to Greenlaw & Hume Community Council as landlord rejecting the proposal, TCI Renewables would work with Greenlaw Football Club to identify a suitable alternative location. They gave an example of a landowner who was associated with the wind farm who owned land in Greenlaw that would be suitable for a 3G pitch. They said the principle of the contribution set out in the Memorandum was therefore not dependent on the Council's permission.
5. TCI Renewables said the ad did not imply that there was no link between wind farms and health, property prices and offsets, but simply reported the situation regarding the withdrawal of the AGHAST advertising following their receipt of the ASA letter.
6. TCI Renewables said the statement "It is possible to stand underneath a wind turbine and hold a conversation without having to raise your voice" was commonly used by wind farm developers to assist the public in understanding the general levels of noise produced by modern turbines and was specifically accepted in the previously referred to CAP HelpNote. They noted that the ASA had considered a number of identical or similar complaints against other ads from wind energy developers, which were not upheld, having concluded that the claim was unlikely to mislead. They said the turbines to be used at Rumbletonrig would be similar to those proposed for the previously investigated schemes. TCI Renewables cited an ASA adjudication from 2008 that stated "the claim was likely to be understood by readers as an example to demonstrate wind turbine noise was not as noticeable as they might expect" and concluded that it was unlikely to mislead.
TCI Renewables said further information continued to be published on turbine noise, which validated this position. They provided a press release that was published by RenewableUK on 16 December 2013, which they said built on the University of Salford study, noting that the 'normal' swish that was made by the turbine blades (Normal Amplitude Modulation ‒ NAM) was heard at its loudest at the turbine. In certain rare circumstances a different sound (Other Amplitude Modulation ‒ OAM) could be heard at a distance from the turbine (typically 800 to 1000 m); but this was no louder than Normal Amplitude Modulation. They said the press release showed that neither type of noise would inhibit a normal conversation at any receiving point in relation to the turbine. They noted that the press release stated "OAM is not louder than NAM; it is relatively quiet, typically no louder than 35 to 40 decibels at a distance of about 1 kilometre, but it is deeper in pitch. OAM is comparable to the sound of traffic noise heard at around one km from a single carriage A-road. By way of comparison, the normal swish of wind turbine blades (NAM) is around 55-60 decibels when the listener is standing right underneath the turbine - the listener would be able to hold a normal conversation without raising their voice".
7. TCI Renewables said their calculations were based on extensive prior experience of designing and constructing wind farms. They supplied an e-mail confirming that they had validated their representation with independent confirmation from an electrical power engineer with 40 years of experience, who advised that "... it would be most unusual for 33kV to be put on lattice towers. This would only happen if a 132kV line were to be de-rated. There are one or two 33kV tower lines in the UK, but these tend to be of some age. Your scheme is for 20MW. A 33kV overhead line using 175mm² conductors is rated at 27MVA. It will therefore comfortably accommodate your output of 20MW, which is equivalent to 21.05MVA at a 0.95 power factor. This type of overhead line usually uses single pole construction, though twin poles may be used where the route changes direction. Please be aware that if the ground is unusually soft or boggy and/or particularly windswept, double poles may become necessary, although DNOs usually try to avoid hilltops in order to minimise the visual intrusion".
TCI Renewables said that data on the SP Energy Networks (the company that owned and operated the electricity transmission and distribution network in Central & Southern Scotland) Utility Map Viewer confirmed the existence of a 33 kilovolt (kV) overhead line supported by single poles to the north of Greenlaw alongside the A6105, and provided details of individual poles supporting the 33 kV line. They provided a Google earth image that showed the 33 kV overhead line being supported by single poles. They said the cables were described on the Utility Map Viewer as being 150 mm² aluminium, and supplied a 33 kV cable manufacturer's data sheet that showed that such a conductor would provide a current rating of 490 amps. They converted the kW output from the wind farm (22,500 kW) to amps using a power factor of 0.95, and calculated that this level of generation would result in a 414 amp loading on the cable. They said this confirmed that a 33 kV line with 150 mm² aluminium conductors and supported by single pole construction could carry an output at the level proposed from the wind farm.
They provided examples from SP Energy Networks' "Specification for 11kV and 33kV Overhead Lines of Unearthed Construction on Single and "H" Type Wood Poles" of 33 kV lines on single wooden light and heavy duty poles. They provided evidence of a SP Energy Networks grid connection offer, which they said demonstrated that SP Energy Networks was content that the grid connection could be rated at this level.
Assessment
1. Not Upheld
The ASA considered that the complainant believed TCI Renewables had not defined the boundaries of "the village of Greenlaw" and there were properties closer than 2 km to the proposed wind farm. However, we noted that TCI Renewables had defined the borders of Greenlaw using the Local Plan, and they had demonstrated on maps produced by the Scottish Borders Council that the nearest turbine would be more than 2 km away from Greenlaw. As TCI had also considered the Proposed Local Plan 2013 to ensure that the proposed amendments to the settlement profile of Greenlaw did not affect this measurement, we concluded that the claim was not misleading.
On this point, we investigated the ad under CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 3.1 Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. (Misleading advertising) and 3.7 3.7 Before distributing or submitting a marketing communication for publication, marketers must hold documentary evidence to prove claims that consumers are likely to regard as objective and that are capable of objective substantiation. The ASA may regard claims as misleading in the absence of adequate substantiation. (Substantiation), but did not find it in breach.
2. Upheld
We noted the evidence that TCI Renewables had supplied suggested that wind turbines generally became energy neutral after a few months of operation and that they returned more energy back to society than they consumed. We understood that while the make and model of wind turbine to be used at Rumbletonrig was yet to be determined, the evidence was considered typical for a modern turbine of the scale proposed for Rumbletonrig, with allowance for variations.
We considered that when calculating the benefits of the development, TCI Renewables had used NOABL wind speed data, which was based on wind modelling data for the broader area, and which the ASA and CAP had previously accepted as a sufficient basis on which to calculate the capacity or load factor. They had also based their calculations on the CAP recommended figure of 430 g CO2 per kWh. We noted that the CAP Help Note required marketers to make clear that their calculations were based on estimated wind conditions and to ensure that claims were phrased conditionally so they did not imply the development would produce a given amount of energy, but rather made clear the calculation was based on an estimate. The full text of the paragraph of the leaflet under the heading "Environmental benefits" stated "Rumbletonrig Wind Farm could make a significant contribution toward meeting Scotland's renewable energy target of the equivalent of 100% of its electricity demand from renewable sources by 2020. The scheme could generate enough clean, green electricity to meet the annual average household need of some 13,700 homes. The scheme could also offset around 25,250 tonnes of the harmful carbon dioxide emissions each year produced through burning fossil fuels in order to generate electricity. This will reduce the overall carbon footprint in the Scottish Border and contribute to tackling climate change". We noted that TCI Renewables had consistently used the word "could" rather than “will”, apart from in the challenged claim, which definitively stated "This will reduce the overall carbon footprint". While we did not consider that the fact that, according to the complainant, the Scottish Borders already used less energy than it produced from renewable sources necessarily negated TCI Renewables' claim that such a development could further reduce the area's net omissions, as we understood that the calculations were based on estimates and similar case studies, we considered it was not possible to be certain that the overall carbon footprint would be reduced and that the claim could not be substantiated.
On this point, the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 3.1 Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. (Misleading advertising), 3.7 3.7 Before distributing or submitting a marketing communication for publication, marketers must hold documentary evidence to prove claims that consumers are likely to regard as objective and that are capable of objective substantiation. The ASA may regard claims as misleading in the absence of adequate substantiation. (Substantiation), 3.11 3.11 Marketing communications must not mislead consumers by exaggerating the capability or performance of a product. and 3.13 3.13 Marketing communications must not suggest that their claims are universally accepted if a significant division of informed or scientific opinion exists. (Exaggeration).
3. Not Upheld
We noted that TCI Renewables had not provided a breakdown of how the £40,000 would be spent and had not provided full details of the programmes the money would deliver or the financial incentives that would be on offer. We noted that TCI Renewables had secured a partnership with the Borders College, Scottish Borders Chamber of Commerce and the Federation of Small Businesses, and had demonstrated that the involved parties had considered how the £40,000 could be used in addition to existing funds and programmes to deliver the opportunities the ad described. We also noted that the text "This one-off funding is in addition to the community benefit fund and it will be up to the local community to decide whether they wish to continue to fund" in the ad made clear that the £40,000 was a one-off donation that was expected to be used to supplement existing community programmes. On that basis, we concluded that the outcomes described in the ad were achievable and the claims were not likely to be misleading.
On this point, we investigated the ad under CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 3.1 Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. (Misleading advertising), 3.7 3.7 Before distributing or submitting a marketing communication for publication, marketers must hold documentary evidence to prove claims that consumers are likely to regard as objective and that are capable of objective substantiation. The ASA may regard claims as misleading in the absence of adequate substantiation. (Substantiation), 3.9 3.9 Marketing communications must state significant limitations and qualifications. Qualifications may clarify but must not contradict the claims that they qualify. (Qualification), 3.11 3.11 Marketing communications must not mislead consumers by exaggerating the capability or performance of a product. and 3.13 3.13 Marketing communications must not suggest that their claims are universally accepted if a significant division of informed or scientific opinion exists. (Exaggeration), but did not find it in breach.
4. Not Upheld
We understood that the Greenland and Hume Community Council had not indicated whether they would approve the building of the 3G football pitch on the site of Greenlaw Football Club's current pitch. However, we accepted that there would be other spaces in Greenlaw on which the pitch could be built and, as we considered that TCI Renewables had shown that they had already considered potential alternative locations, we concluded that the claim was not misleading.
On this point, we investigated the ad under CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 3.1 Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. (Misleading advertising), 3.7 3.7 Before distributing or submitting a marketing communication for publication, marketers must hold documentary evidence to prove claims that consumers are likely to regard as objective and that are capable of objective substantiation. The ASA may regard claims as misleading in the absence of adequate substantiation. (Substantiation) and 3.9 3.9 Marketing communications must state significant limitations and qualifications. Qualifications may clarify but must not contradict the claims that they qualify. (Qualification), but did not find it in breach.
5. Not Upheld
We noted that the ad quoted and dismissed claims that were previously made in a leaflet by the pressure group AGHAST that related to wind farms and health, property prices and offsets. However, we also noted that TCI Renewables clearly stated they believed that agreeing not to repeat the claims amounted to an admission that they were misleading. We considered that consumers would regard this as subjective opinion rather than as a statement of fact, and that the claims were therefore not misleading.
On this point, we investigated the ad under CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 3.1 Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. (Misleading advertising) and 3.13 3.13 Marketing communications must not suggest that their claims are universally accepted if a significant division of informed or scientific opinion exists. (Exaggeration), but did not find it in breach.
6. Not Upheld
We noted that previous ASA investigations had examined the issue of whether a normal conversation could be held beneath a wind turbine and found that the claim was unlikely to mislead. We also noted that this exact claim was accepted in the "Wind Energy Advice Note" CAP Help Note. We considered that the further evidence TCI Renewables produced supported this position, and as we had not seen any evidence to dispute it in this case, we concluded that the claim was unlikely to be misleading.
On this point, we investigated the ad under CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 3.1 Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. (Misleading advertising), 3.7 3.7 Before distributing or submitting a marketing communication for publication, marketers must hold documentary evidence to prove claims that consumers are likely to regard as objective and that are capable of objective substantiation. The ASA may regard claims as misleading in the absence of adequate substantiation. (Substantiation), 3.9 3.9 Marketing communications must state significant limitations and qualifications. Qualifications may clarify but must not contradict the claims that they qualify. (Qualification), 3.11 3.11 Marketing communications must not mislead consumers by exaggerating the capability or performance of a product. and 3.13 3.13 Marketing communications must not suggest that their claims are universally accepted if a significant division of informed or scientific opinion exists. (Exaggeration), but did not find it in breach.
7. Not Upheld
We considered that the complainant believed a single line of timber poles could not carry the output from a wind farm without unacceptable losses in transmission. We noted that the expert TCI Renewables had consulted identified certain areas in which double poles might be necessary. However, as we considered TCI Renewables had provided examples of similar output being carried by single poles, we concluded that this was possible and the image was therefore not misleading.
On this point, we investigated the ad under CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 3.1 Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. (Misleading advertising), 3.7 3.7 Before distributing or submitting a marketing communication for publication, marketers must hold documentary evidence to prove claims that consumers are likely to regard as objective and that are capable of objective substantiation. The ASA may regard claims as misleading in the absence of adequate substantiation. (Substantiation), 3.11 3.11 Marketing communications must not mislead consumers by exaggerating the capability or performance of a product. and 3.13 3.13 Marketing communications must not suggest that their claims are universally accepted if a significant division of informed or scientific opinion exists. (Exaggeration), but did not find it in breach.
Action
The ad must not appear in its current form. We told TCI Renewables Ltd not to claim that the scheme would be environmentally beneficial without making clear that this was based on estimates.
