Watchdog slams "misleading" pro-Heathrow expansion ad

The long-running saga surrounding the controversial plans to expand Heathrow took another twist yesterday when advertising watchdog the ASA banned an ad from a pro-expansion group backed by airport operator BAA, after concluding its claim that a third runway would not "make Heathrow any noisier or dirtier" was " misleading".

The regional press ad from the Future Heathrow group appeared in the run up to the government's decision earlier this year to approve plans for a third runway at the airport. It stated that the group supported "sustainable growth" at the airport and claimed that "there will never be a dirty, noisy third runway at Heathrow".

It went on to argue that the planned expansion would not go ahead unless the airport's noise footprint is no bigger than it was in 2002 and that "it won't get the green light unless local air quality meets stringent EU standards on concentrations of nitrogen dioxide".

The ad prompted an official complaint from Labour backbencher John McDonnell, the MP for Hayes and Harlington and a fierce critic of the Heathrow expansion plans, who said that the claims a third runway would not make the airport " noisier or dirtier" and that it would not be approved unless EU standards on concentrations of nitrogen oxide were met were misleading.

BAA, acting on behalf of Future Heathrow, said that the claims were partly based on the Government's White Paper on Heathrow of December 2003 and that unequivocal statements from both the government and BAA confirmed that the expanded airport would not be permitted to breach EU air quality regulations.

It added that as a result the advert's claim that "a third runway won't make Heathrow any noisier or dirtier" was a "statement of fact" and that "readers would be right to confidently understand that a third runway would definitely not create more noise or air pollution than Heathrow at present" on the grounds that if necessary flight numbers would be curbed to avoid the rules being breached.

However, in a decision that is likely to reopen the debate over whether the government and the BAA manipulated the air and noise pollution models used to justify support for expansion the Advertising Standards Authority upheld both complaints and banned the advert in its current form.

The watchdog said that while it accepted that the government was confident it would be able to meet noise targets and ensure that the expanded airport does not breach EU limits on NO2 by 2020, it "also understood that there was a well-publicised, significant difference of opinion as to whether the limits would be met", particularly given the UK's current exemption from NO2 rules only runs until 2015.

Consequently, it concluded that the presentation of the claim that Heathrow would not get any "dirtier or noisier" as an absolute fact was likely to mislead.

It also ruled that guarantees that expansion would not be approved without confirmation that the site would not exceed EU pollution rules could not be backed up on the grounds that "government intended to allow the construction of a third runway at Heathrow now and to address meeting EU NO2 targets, including in the locality of Heathrow, in the future".

The ruling is likely to be seized on by green groups who have long maintained that the government and BAA co-operated to develop overly optimistic predictions regarding the impact of a third runway on air and noise pollution.

The models used to justify claims that air and noise pollution would be kept under control were even accused of being based on hypothetical aircraft that are not currently in development, while it was only this year that the government appointed the Environment Agency as an independent assessor tasked with ensuring air pollution limits are not breached.

Despite the government's controversial approval for a third runway, the debate surrounding Heathrow's expansion is likely to be reignited during next year's election campaign with both opposition parties pledging to reverse the decision.