Background
Summary of Council decision:
Three issues were investigated, of which two were Upheld and on was Not upheld.
Ad description
A brochure for Gladman Developments, received on 25 May 2018, titled the “THE STAFFORDSHIRE STANDARD … FREE SPRING EDITION” in the title section. The subheading stated “ACTON HILL PARK … NEW COMMUNITY PARK ANNOUNCED”. The brochure was laid out in a format similar to a newspaper. The first article stated “A new Community Park was today announced near Wildwood in Weeping Cross creating wildlife links between Radford Meadows Nature Reserve and Cannock Chase … The seven-acre park will be designed to provide an area of recreation for local residents”. The ad contained a number of other references to wildlife and a community park.
The centre fold pages of the brochure included a drawn map which showed where a planned housing development was to be built under the heading “GREEN VISION FOR ACTON HILL”. The houses were coloured green against a green background. The image was surrounded by several pictures of animals and a family walking along a country path above a column titled “Family homes in a countryside setting”.
The back page stated, under the heading “BENEFITS TO THE LOCAL AUTHORITY”, that the planned estate would generate “£2.4 million approximate council tax payments over 10 years” and explained a number of local benefits. At the bottom of the page the ad stated “ACTON HILL PARK - SUPPORT We support the proposals for Acton Hill Park explained in this newspaper and welcome the improvements to Stafford”. The ad also included a form to be returned to Gladman Developments to register support for the development.
Issue
The ASA received two complaints; one from a councillor for Stafford Borough Council, and one from a member of the public.
1. The complainants challenged whether the ad was obviously identifiable as a marketing communication.
The complainants also challenged whether the ad was misleading because:
2. it gave the impression that a park was to be built in the area; and
3. it implied that the benefits of the development would go to Stafford Borough Council.
Response
1. Gladman Developments responded that they did not consider that the ad was a marketing communication. They said that the document formed part of a consultation in advance of a planning application and, at the stage that the document was sent, there was no product to be sold. Instead, information was provided and views from local residents were sought prior to any application taking place.
However, Gladman Developments further responded that, if the document was considered to be a marketing communication, they did not accept that the purpose of the document was unclear. They said that most people receiving the information would have the context of knowing about a previous proposal and planning submission, as it had been reported widely in the local press and had been subject to South Staffordshire’s own consultation. They said that whilst the leaflet focused on the community park element of the proposal, the front page also detailed other community benefits, including contributions towards local schools and public transport. The leaflet also contained a map which made clear that the proposal included building residential dwellings, as did the graphic on the back. They also said that the document would have included a reply postcard which made it clear that the document was part of a consultation ahead of a planning application.
Gladman Developments said that the document had been named “Spring Edition” because it was intended to be the first in a series of leaflets due to be distributed to residents using a common format in the run up to the second planning application. However, further consultation had since been paused due to local planning policy. They said that those who received the letter and responded appeared to understand its purpose.
2. Gladman Developments said that, at the time that the leaflet was sent, the proposed residential development site was an agricultural field without public access and that part of their planned development included a community park that residents and members of the public would have access to.
They said that the title banner of the brochure stated that the development would comprise of “Family homes in a countryside setting” and that inside the brochure there was reference to the number and type of dwellings proposed on the site. Those references were displayed alongside a site plan that showed a development of dwellings surrounded by public open space including community parkland, tree and shrub planting, pathways, water bodies and other outdoor spaces.
3. Gladman Developments responded that the purpose of the leaflet was not to explain Local Authority finances or boundaries, as cross-boundary issues were matters for local authorities to address. They said that the site of the development was in South Staffordshire District, which lay immediately south of a boundary with Stafford resulting in a cross-boundary issue. Although some residents who lived within Stafford Borough were sent the leaflet, given their proximity to the proposed area of development, it was right to contact them as they may be impacted by the proposal.
Gladman Developments noted that the leaflet outlined both non-financial and financial benefits, and that the former would be felt by people who lived in areas close to the development whether they were residents of the area covered by Staffordshire Borough Council or South Staffordshire District.
The page titled “BENEFITS TO THE LOCAL AUTHORITY” set out the ratio of house prices to average earnings in South Staffordshire, which was mentioned because it was the local authority in which the proposed site sat. They also noted that a proportion of the Council Tax and s106 monies would be allotted to Staffordshire County Council to fund services in Stafford Borough as well as South Staffordshire, so some financial benefits would go to Stafford Borough Council. They noted that some of the financial benefits including increased spending in local businesses and construction jobs would also be of benefit to residents.
Assessment
1. Upheld
The brochure sought to gain support for a proposed development, and included calls to action for readers to provide their feedback in support of the development and to register interest in flats on the site. The ASA considered the brochure therefore constituted a marketing communication which fell under the remit of the CAP Code.
The CAP Code required that marketing communications were obviously identifiable as such. We understood that consumers who received the ad would have also received a reply postcard. However, we considered that a consumer’s first impression of the ad would have been based on its front page. The ad was titled “THE STAFFORDSHIRE STANDARD” and included pictures, columns and fonts that had a similar style to a newspaper or local news bulletin. We noted that the ad did not make clear that it was from Gladman Developments, and did not include any text that stated that it was a marketing communication, or what its purpose was until the final page which included a slip to cut out and post back to register support. We further noted that the slip on the final page referred to the ad as a “newspaper”.
We acknowledged that some consumers who read the ad in full may understand that it was an ad for Gladman Developments. However, we considered that it was not immediately clear from the document that it was an ad. For that reason, we concluded that the ad was not obviously identifiable as a marketing communication, and therefore breached the Code.
On this point, the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rule 2.1 2.1 Marketing communications must be obviously identifiable as such. (Recognition of marketing communications).
2. Upheld
Although we considered that the ad was not obviously identifiable, we needed to consider what consumers would understand from the overall content of the ad.
The headline of the ad was “ACTON HILL PARK NEW COMMUNITY PARK ANNOUNCED” and the ad was coloured green including green font. The front page of the ad included five pictures of rural settings and two articles that detailed features of the proposed park. We acknowledged that the front page stated “SEE INSIDE + Reintroducing historic wildlife + Family homes in a countryside setting” and featured two articles that mentioned other issues including “Over £34 million improvements to local schools” and “Improvements to local transport”. We noted that the schools article mentioned “the houses at Acton Hill”. However, we considered that the emphasis was placed on the proposed park, and that consequently consumers would not understand from the front page that the purpose of the ad was to secure support for a housing development.
Although the ad’s centre fold contained a map with houses marked on it, those houses were coloured over with a smudged green shade that matched the colour used to indicate parkland. The map was headed “A GREEN VISION FOR ACTON HILL” and appeared alongside an article that began “The overriding goal of Acton Hill Park would be to create new and diverse habitats for animals and plants”. The article included several pictures of wildlife and rural images, for example a river and bridge. The centre pages also contained an article that detailed plans for affordable homes in the area and homes for the over 50s, and an additional article that outlined the houses to be built on the development. However, we considered that the most prominent part of the centre-fold was the large map and images which emphasised the park. We further considered that, while the back page of the ad was more explicit about what was being proposed, it included a form to fill in and return that stated “We support the proposals for Acton Hill Park”.
We acknowledged that some consumers, who closely read every part of the ad, may understand that houses were proposed for the land. However, we considered that the overall impression consumers were likely to take from the ad was that the main purpose of the development was to build a park. Because that was not the case, we concluded that, on this point, the ad was misleading.
The ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 3.1 Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. 3.3 (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).
3. Not upheld
We understood that because the planned development was located in South Staffordshire, but near its border with Stafford Borough, some consumers who received the ad lived in Stafford Borough.
We considered that consumers would understand from the claim “BENEFITS TO THE LOCAL AUTHORITY” that a local authority would receive the listed benefits of Council Tax and New Home Bonus payments. However, we considered that consumers would generally understand that the benefits referenced in the ad, including money for services and council tax, would be paid to the council that had authority over the development.
We considered that the ad was clear as to the location of the development. We further noted that, on the same page as the local authority claim, the ad included a graphic labelled “RATIO OF AVERAGE HOUSE PRICES TO AVERAGE EARNINGS” that compared England, the West Midlands and South Staffordshire specifically. We considered that consumers would therefore understand that the development was in South Staffordshire, and that it would therefore be South Staffordshire’s local authority that received the Council Tax and New Home Bonus payments. We concluded that, on this point, the ad was not misleading.
On this point, we investigated the ad under CAP Code (Edition12) rules 3.1 3.1 Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. 3.3 (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.
Action
The ad must not appear again in its current form. We told Gladman Developments Ltd to ensure that their future marketing communications were obviously identifiable as such and to ensure that their ads which related to planned housing developments did not mislead consumers about the proposals for the site.
