Ad description
A regional press ad, seen on 13 May 2016, promoted a proposed property development. It featured an aerial photograph of the area, with the proposed development and boundary superimposed on to the image. Text below the image stated “Over 50% of the site will be green space”. Further text provided further detail regarding the new community and stated “Wisley Airfield’s been derelict for more than 40 years. ... It has a consented direct connection to the A3 and is just minutes from local stations using one of the planned frequent bus services."
Issue
The ASA received ten complaints. Complainants challenged whether the following claims were misleading and could be substantiated:
1. Some complainants challenged the claim "It has a consented direct connection to the A3";
2. Some complainants challenged the claim "It ... is just minutes from local stations using one of the planned frequent bus services"; and,
3. Some complainants challenged the claim "Over 50% of the site will be green space".
Response
1. Wisley Property Investments Ltd (Wisley) explained that the site concerned a proposed new community at the former Wisley Airfield, located in Guildford Borough Council's (GBC) administrative boundaries. The proposal included over 2000 homes, a school, parkland and community facilities. It did not have planning consent, which they believed was clear in the ad.
Wisley stated that, prior to its promotion as a new community, an application for an In-Vessel Composting (IVC) Facility was granted planning consent, which included consent for a direct access to the A3. They maintained that the IVC facility consent, including access, had been implemented and considered that that represented an existing "consented direct" connection to the A3. They considered the reference in the ad related to the existing permission for the connection to the site.
Wisley provided documentation from Surrey County Council (SCC) showing that "planning permission for a fully enclosed in-vessel composting facility with a new vehicular/pedestrian access from the A3 Ockham roundabout comprising a new site access road", had been granted, and that the associated planning conditions did not place any restrictions on the types of vehicles which could use that road. They provided further documentation showing that that permission was still recognised.
They were made aware that one complainant maintained that the IVC facility covered 17 hectares out of a total of 114 and that he believed that the permission was for a road dedicated exclusively for use as access to the IVC. The complainant also maintained that Wisley intended to discontinue the application to build the IVC and that the IVC facility road access would not be progressed or built. He considered the claim was misleading because he believed consented access would be understood to relate to access to the wider and/or whole development, and not just access from the A3 to an IVC facility on the proposed development site.
Wisley reiterated that the agreement from SCC did not place any restrictions on the type of use of the road, where it would lead, or the physical area it would serve. They added that the future status of the IVC facility was not relevant as, under the consent given, the road link could be built with or without the rest of the IVC being delivered. They considered that the ad remained accurate as it referred to existing consent for a connection to the A3 and the ad did not specify the details of the route.
Wisley confirmed it was their intention that the road would be for public use, and that consented route was almost identical to the route proposed to access the community, but by law the road could not be dedicated public highway until it was constructed. They stated that, to complete the process, the road would have to be constructed then adopted as a highway using the relevant highway authority process. If adopted by the county highways authority (SCC) it would be managed by them. If it was not adopted by the Council, it would be managed and maintained by a body set up by the developers. They stated it was likely some minor changes would be made to the road plans if the scheme were to come forward, which would be subject to an additional planning permission to cover the alternations. They stated that that did not detract from the existing consent in place and reiterated that the ad made reference to "consented direct connection to the A3".
They provided an extract from the SCC website which confirmed the process for the adoption of new roads by developers.
2. Wisley noted that the complainants had challenged the claim on the basis that the nearest station was 2.6 miles from the centre of the site, and because they maintained that there were no public footpaths or bus services along any of the connecting roads, and understood that no bus operator had agreed to operate on the route.
Wisley said their proposals included a significant package of measures to improve public transport provision; those measures were currently at the 'planned' stage, which they felt was clear in the ad. They had planned a frequent service, capable of dropping users at one of two stations, with a journey time of less than ten minutes at normal travelling speeds and the planned improvements to bus services would see some existing routes extended or reoriented and others created. Funding for the routes was an agreed contribution to SCC via a legally binding Section 106 agreement, associated with the future planning approval for the new settlement. They provided correspondence from SCC indicating that the Section 106 agreement should specify the delivery of a minimum level of service for perpetuity, and that SCC considered that Wisley's calculations regarding the proposed transport provisions were acceptable.
They stated the distance from the Village Centre to Effingham Junction was 2.3 miles, which they believed would take a journey time of 5-6 minutes at an average speed of 25mph. They provided a plan of the existing 515 bus route and the proposed bus routes to Horsley railway station, Effingham Junction railway station and Cobham.
3. Wisley provided a map setting out the development area, the layout and its boundary. They stated the area was made up of 114.7 hectares, therefore 50% of the site equated to 57.35 hectares. The plan included green space and green infrastructure, such as pitches, formal and informal play spaces, which covered 64.1 hectares and therefore came to 55.8% of the site. They added that the calculation did not include front or back gardens nor the all-weather sports areas, which came to a further 1.1 hectares (0.96% of the site).
Wisley further understood that some complainants had challenged the claim on the basis that it suggested that the development would be low density, whereas they understood that parts of the development would have a high density of housing. Wisley did not agree with that interpretation of the claim and stated the site would contain a mixture of densities appropriate to the location of the type of housing planned.
Assessment
1. Not upheld
The ASA considered that people would understand that the claims related to a planning proposal which was still under consideration and which was subject to the requirements and stages of the relevant planning process. We considered people would appreciate that, particularly where a large development was proposed, there were likely to be several stages involved in the overall process, such as consultation periods, decisions and appeals, and that the process could therefore take a great deal of time to reach a conclusion. We considered that people might further assume that, during the different stages of the planning process, elements of a proposed development might be accepted or approved in theory or in practice, and other elements might be refused and/or be subject to amendment or removal.
We considered readers would understand from the detail in the ad that the developers were not at an early stage of the process, and had carried out a significant amount of planning and research regarding the logistics of the proposed development.
In that context, although we accepted that readers would infer that the plans set out in the ad were still under proposal and had not been given a final approval, we also considered that they were likely to understand that any “consented” element of the plan had already been approved.
We noted that the claim that the site had a “consented direct connection to the A3" appeared alongside text describing the proposed housing and community facilities, and, in the absence of qualifying information, considered readers would understand "consented direct connection to the A3" to represent planning consent for a public road which would provide access from the A3 to the housing and facilities for residents and visitors.
We understood that permission for new vehicular/pedestrian access from the A3 Ockham roundabout comprising a new site access road had been granted and that the associated planning conditions did not place any restrictions on the types of vehicles which could use that road. While a road could not be dedicated as a public highway until it had been constructed, we noted that it was the developers’ intention that the access road would become a public highway and we considered that the approval already obtained by Wisley was consistent with readers’ understanding of the claim in the context that it appeared.
On that 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.
3.3
3.3
Marketing communications must not mislead the consumer by omitting material information. They must not mislead by hiding material information or presenting it in an unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous or untimely manner.
Material information is information that the consumer needs to make informed decisions in relation to a product. Whether the omission or presentation of material information is likely to mislead the consumer depends on the context, the medium and, if the medium of the marketing communication is constrained by time or space, the measures that the marketer takes to make that information available to the consumer by other means.
(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
3.11
3.11
Marketing communications must not mislead consumers by exaggerating the capability or performance of a product.
(Exaggeration), but did not find it in breach.
2. Not upheld
We considered that people would infer from the ad that, notwithstanding the claim addressed under point 1, the plans set out in the ad were still under proposal and had not been given a final approval. We considered they would understand the claim “Wisley […] is just minutes from local train stations using one of the planned frequent bus services” to mean that the development was not far from at least two National Rail stations by bus, and that the plans included further provision for frequent bus services linking them to the development. We did not consider that people would understand that the claim implied that the stations were within walking distance or that the planned bus service was exclusively reliant on existing bus routes or road transport provision.
Because we considered that the information and documentation provided showed that there was planned provision for a bus service from the community to the nearest railway stations, which would potentially be accessible in under ten minutes, depending on traffic, we concluded the claim was unlikely to mislead.
On that 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.
3.3
3.3
Marketing communications must not mislead the consumer by omitting material information. They must not mislead by hiding material information or presenting it in an unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous or untimely manner.
Material information is information that the consumer needs to make informed decisions in relation to a product. Whether the omission or presentation of material information is likely to mislead the consumer depends on the context, the medium and, if the medium of the marketing communication is constrained by time or space, the measures that the marketer takes to make that information available to the consumer by other means.
(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
3.11
3.11
Marketing communications must not mislead consumers by exaggerating the capability or performance of a product.
(Exaggeration), but did not find it in breach.
3. Not upheld
We considered the claim "Over 50% of the site will be green space" to mean that over half of the proposed site would not be filled with housing or other buildings, but would include public or shared outdoor space, likely to be covered by natural greenery; for example, park areas and sports facilities. We considered that some people would further understand “green space” to include private gardens and lawns.
We also noted that the ad featured a photograph showing the proposed “New Site”, which set out the boundary of the site in the context of the wider geographical area, and which clearly set out where the proposed housing was to be located, namely in the lower half of the area designated on the map. We also noted the proposed community was surrounded by a larger area of green space. We considered readers would therefore understand from that image where the buildings were planned to be situated within the site and wider area, and would understand the proposed density of housing in the site and area from the image.
We acknowledged the documentation provided by the advertisers showed that the areas they had defined as “green space and green infrastructure” amounted to 55.8% of the site and covered a slightly larger percentage of the site if gardens were also included.
Because we considered that the ad, through the use of the image, made clear how the proposed density of buildings was arranged and because the supporting information showed that the outdoor green space amounted to over half of the site, we concluded that the claim, in the context in which it appeared, was not misleading.
On that point, we investigated the ad under CAP Code rules
3.1
3.1
Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.
3.3
3.3
Marketing communications must not mislead the consumer by omitting material information. They must not mislead by hiding material information or presenting it in an unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous or untimely manner.
Material information is information that the consumer needs to make informed decisions in relation to a product. Whether the omission or presentation of material information is likely to mislead the consumer depends on the context, the medium and, if the medium of the marketing communication is constrained by time or space, the measures that the marketer takes to make that information available to the consumer by other means.
(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
3.11
3.11
Marketing communications must not mislead consumers by exaggerating the capability or performance of a product.
(Exaggeration) but did not find it in breach.
Action
No further action necessary.
