Background
Summary of Council decision:
Three issues were investigated, of which two were Not upheld and one was Upheld.
Ad description
A regional press ad in the style of a newsletter for Mayfields, a developer seeking to build in the Sussex area, was seen in the East Grinstead Gazette in April 2017. Text at the top of the page stated “… we’ve set out the findings of an ICM survey … the overwhelming preference of local residents is for a new stand-alone settlement rather than a continuation of the policy of ‘add-ons’ to existing towns … This week we want to explain in more detail how we came to identify the site we are proposing for a new market town”.
Text in the main body of the ad stated “In 2009 Mid Sussex Council jointly commissioned … a study … to undertake a robust feasibility exercise ... for a new Market Town … The work underpinning the study was carried out by [an] independent consultancy with support from other experts. They concluded a new market town was deliverable and identified a site that sat almost in the middle of the villages of Wineham, Twineham, Syers Common, Albourne, Blackstone and Henfield”.
Text continued, “Under the South East Plan Mid Sussex had to find 17,100 homes. For political reasons, the council decided not to pursue the concept of a market town … Following the latest Inspector’s report, the 2009 total has slightly increased to 17,442 homes. In the latest report from the inspector, he has clearly stated that an assessment of a single settlement option should have been carried out”.
Issue
Locals Against Mayfields Building Sprawl (LAMBS) challenged whether the following statements were misleading and could be substantiated:
1. “They [the study authors] concluded a new market town was deliverable and identified a site that sat almost in the middle of the villages of Wineham, Twineham, Syers Common, Albourne, Blackstone and Henfield”;
2. “For political reasons, the council decided not to pursue the concept of a market town”; and
3. “In the latest report from the inspector, he has clearly stated that an assessment of a single settlement option should have been carried out”.
Response
1. Mayfields said they did not believe this claim was misleading and provided evidence in support of its use. They said Crawley District Council, Horsham District Council and Mid Sussex District Council jointly commissioned property consultants GL Hearn to undertake a new market town study in 2009 to investigate the possibility of a new standalone settlement in West Sussex. They said the final report released by GL Hearn in August 2010 identified five possible options in an area straddling the border of Mid Sussex and Horsham and focused on four variations of a proposal that sat near Hickstead/Wineham, Hickstead/Cowfield and Hickstead. They provided a copy of the report which they believed supported the claim.
2. Mayfields said they did not believe this claim was misleading and provided evidence in support of its use. They said the commissioning of the GL Hearn report was part of the then Council’s core strategy to plan future development up to 2016. They said following the 2010 General Election, held in May, the new Secretary for State for Communities and Local Government, Eric Pickles, wrote to all the councils stating that all regional plans were to be abolished. They said on 16 June 2010 the Mid Sussex District Council voted for a motion that stated “Mid Sussex District Council has consistently and rigorously disputed the housing figures allocated from regional bodies. The unjustified high housing allocation has caused difficulty and conflict across the whole of Mid Sussex. The letter received from Eric Pickles MP, Secretary for State for Communities and Local Government, is most welcome, and directs us to towards new strategies and policies and allows us to begin making decisions for our district … We therefore propose that this Council should … request that the Cabinet member write to all relevant parties stating that we will be ceasing all joint projects and proposals involving regional and sub regional housing numbers”. They provided a copy of the Agenda and minutes of that Council meeting which they believed supported the claim.
3. Mayfields said they did not believe this claim was misleading and provided evidence in support of its use. They said the planning inspector from the Mid Sussex District Council had stated in a report dated 20 February 2017 “Moreover, more consideration should have been given to the potential for new freestanding developments as opposed to settlement expansions”. They said he had clearly stated that a single settlement option should have been considered. Further, they said the assessment process through which all sites were considered for allocation by local councils was known as the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA). They said there was only one freestanding settlement option available for consideration and that was Mayfield Market Town. All other sites could have only been regarded as extensions to existing urban areas. Their view was that when the Inspector said “… more consideration should have been given to the potential for new freestanding development …” he could have only been referring to the SHLAA process, which included, as their advertorial stated, an assessment (through the SHLAA) of a single settlement option.
Assessment
1. Not upheld
The ASA considered that people would understand that the claims related to a planning proposal 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. The process could therefore take a great deal of time to reach a conclusion. We considered readers would understand from the detail in the ad that the developers were at a very early stage of the process. This was particularly so because of text which appeared in a box titled “What can you do?” stated “Ask your local councillor why they haven’t met with Mayfield Market Towns to discuss a single site location …” and “Let your local MP know you support the idea of a planned new town”. In that context, we considered readers would infer that the plans set out in the ad were still merely a proposal and had not been given any sort of approval.
We also considered readers would understand, given the numerous issues and level of information often associated with land development, relevant marketing communications would not be able to provide every detail about complex planning proposals, but would expect the content not to misrepresent the current situation and facts – for example, by omitting relevant context or information.
We considered readers would understand the claim “They [the study authors] concluded a new market town was deliverable and identified a site that sat almost in the middle of the villages of Wineham, Twineham, Syers Common, Albourne, Blackstone and Henfield” broadly to mean the report authors had located an area for the new market town site. We noted the complainant maintained that four of the named villages lay outside the area set out in the report, as did the only land over which Mayfields had control. Further, the complainant believed none of the options sat in the middle of the listed villages, nor did they straddle the border of Mid Sussex and Horsham, as Mayfields had indicated.
The complainant also believed the claim was factually inaccurate because Mayfields’ “new market town” was being promoted in an area west of the sites proposed in the GL Hearn report. They therefore believed that readers would understand that the GL Hearn sites were where the Mayfields’ new market town site was being proposed, and that any statement Mayfields made relying on the GL Hearn report would be misleading. We noted that the G L Hearn report the advertiser had provided demonstrated a variety of options for a proposed site. While we acknowledged those sites were not located exactly and directly in the middle of Wineham, Twineham, Syers Common, Albourne, Blackstone and Henfield, we noted the claim specified a site “almost in the middle” of the listed villages and considered readers would not expect the proposed sites to be located exactly equidistantly between the listed villages, but rather were found in that general area and in the villages’ vicinity. We also did not consider that readers would infer from the claim that the sites identified were the only sites or finalised sites for any development proposed.
The complainant had also said the report stated the project could only be deliverable with the support of the Council who would need to invoke compulsory purchase powers. However, we considered readers would understand the claim did not imply further steps had been taken, other than the identification of sites, to realise the town, such as planning permission or land acquisition.
Because we considered the GL Hearn report demonstrated the report authors had located an area for the new market town site which sat almost in the middle of the villages of Wineham, Twineham, Sayers Common, Albourne, Blackstone and Henfield and was near the border of Mid Sussex and Horsham, we concluded the claim was not misleading.
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. (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. Not upheld
We noted the claim “For political reasons, the council decided not to pursue the concept of a market town” was followed by text which stated “Much of that reasoning was based on the assumption that Mid Sussex could plan for a lower housing target following the change of government in 2010 …”. We considered readers would understand the phrase “For political reasons” was broad in meaning and likely to mean the decision not to pursue the concept of a market town was influenced to some extent by politics, but not to the exclusion of any other reasons.
We noted the complainant had supplied a statement from the independent inspector from the Horsham District Council and a statement to parliament made by Nicholas Soames MP. They highlighted excerpts from the inspector’s statement, including text which stated “I consider that the very significant increase in the amount of development involved in the MMT proposal is not required in current circumstances”. The complainant believed the inspector’s view of the Mayfields Market Town proposal was based on practical rather than political reasoning. Similarly, they believed the MP’s statement to parliament set out practical reasons for the decision not to pursue the concept of a market town.
We acknowledged the statements had set out practical reasons for the position the respective persons had taken. However, we considered that Mayfields had demonstrated that political decision-making had had an impact on the decision and they had sufficiently contextualised the claim in the ad. For these reasons, we concluded the claim was not likely 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. (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.
3. Upheld
Notwithstanding the above, we considered readers would understand the claim “In the latest report from the inspector, he has clearly stated that an assessment of a single settlement option should have been carried out” to mean the inspector had made a clear statement that an assessment of a single settlement option should have been carried out. This impression was supported by the lack of language that qualified the statement in any way.
The complainant had said the inspector’s report focused on the reduction of the strategic site hurdle and believed the claim was misleading for implying the inspector supported the idea of a single settlement. They relied on the same excerpt of the report dated 20 February 2017 supplied by the advertiser in support of their view which stated “Moreover, more consideration should have been given to the potential for new freestanding developments as opposed to settlement extensions”. We noted the inspector was likely referring to the Mayfield Market Town. Nevertheless, we considered that this statement from the report was more qualified in tone and delivery than the claim in the ad implied, and the inspector was also likely referring to single settlement options in a broad sense. The claim was also not contextualised in any way. We did not think the statement from the report was a clear statement that an assessment of a single settlement option should have been carried out. For these reasons, we considered the claim was likely to mislead.
On that point, the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rule 3.1 3.1 Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. (Misleading advertising).
Action
The ad must not appear again in the form complained of. We told Mayfields to ensure they presented factual information clearly and accurately.
