1. Upheld

The ASA noted the images in ads (a) and (b) were computer-generated and that the advertiser used them to reflect the impact that they believed the wind turbines could have on the coastline. However, we considered that readers were likely to interpret the images of the turbines on a cliff top and along the coastline, in conjunction with the text "Did you know an application has been submitted to erect 9 wind turbines at Fraisthorpe, which will dominate Bridlington Bay for decades to come? The natural beauty of the coastline will be ruined forever" in ad (a), as accurate representations of how the turbines would look if planning permission was granted. We also considered that the images of the turbines on a cliff top, alongside the text "Nine enormous wind turbines are proposed for the cliff top fields of Fraisthorpe. They will be five times higher than Flamborough Lighthouse ... They will have a massive impact on the natural beauty of Bridlington Bay" in ad (b), were likely to be interpreted as accurate representations of how the turbines would look. While we acknowledged that ad (b) included text that stated "PICTURE FOR ILLUSTRATION PURPOSES ONLY" we did not consider that this took away from the overall impression created by the images and text. Because we had not seen evidence to demonstrate that the images of the turbines in ads (a) and (b) accurately represented the visual effects of the proposed wind farm, we considered that they had not been substantiated and concluded that they were misleading.

On this point the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising) and 3.7 (Substantiation).

2. Upheld

We noted from TCI's planning application that the proposed nine wind turbines were 130 m to the tip. We also noted from the advertiser and from information published on the website for the General Lighthouse Authority that the height of the tower of Flamborough Lighthouse was 26.5 m. We noted 130 m was equal to 426.509 feet and five times 26.5 m was equal to 132.50 m and considered that it was therefore reasonable for the advertiser to claim that the turbines would be 427 feet tall, which was five times higher than Flamborough Lighthouse.

We noted the TCI document showed the existing Lissett turbines and the proposed Fraisthorpe turbines and that, from the viewpoint of Hilderthorpe, the Fraisthorpe turbines appeared significantly larger than those in Lissett. We also noted the press article stated that the Fraisthorpe turbines would be closer to Bridlington and appear larger than those in Lissett. However, we also noted the turbines at Lissett wind farm measured 125 m,and those at the proposed Fraisthorpe wind farm measured 130 m. We noted ad (a) stated "Love Bridlington ... shame about the view ... [the proposed turbines] will dominate Bridlington Bay ... and will dwarf the existing ones at Lissett" and ad (b) stated "Nine enormous wind turbines are proposed for the cliff top fields at Fraisthorpe. They will be five times higher than Flamborough Lighthouse and their prominent position will mean that they dwarf the existing ones at Lissett". However, we considered that it was not clear from the ads from what viewpoint the advertiser was claiming that the proposed Fraisthorpe turbines would dwarf the existing Lissett turbines and that, without qualification, readers would understand that the proposed Fraisthorpe turbines were significantly bigger in size than those in Lissett. Because this was not the case we considered that the claim that the Fraisthorpe turbines would dwarf the existing Lissett turbines was likely to mislead.

On this point the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising).

3. Upheld

We noted ad (a) stated "The natural beauty of the coastline will be ruined forever if planning permission is granted" and that the advertisers believed that this was an accurate interpretation and description of what the coastline would look like if planning permission was granted. We understood TCI believed that the claim was misleading because the application was for a period of 25 years, after which the turbines would be removed. We noted from the planning statement and the website for Fraisthorpe Wind Farm that, if the application was granted, the operational life of the wind farm would be 25 years and that after this period planning permission would need to be reapplied for, or the site would need to be decommissioned and the land returned to its former state, which usually required all visible traces of the wind farm to be removed. We considered that the claim that the coastline would be ruined forever implied that, if planning permission was granted, the coastline would never be returned to its former state. Because we had not received any evidence to demonstrate that would be the case, we considered that it had not been substantiated and that the claim "The natural beauty of the coastline will be ruined forever if planning permission is granted" in ad (a) was misleading.

On this point the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising) and 3.7 (Substantiation).