ASA Adjudication on Future Heathrow

Ad

A regional press ad, in support of a third runway at Heathrow airport stated "future heathrow SUPPORTING SUSTAINABLE GROWTH … Why there will never be a dirty, noisy third runway at Heathrow ... no one wants a dirty, noisy runway on their doorstep. And neither do we. That's why the planned expansion of Heathrow will not go ahead unless the airport's noise footprint is no bigger than it was in 2002. Equally, it won't get the green light unless local air quality meets stringent EU standards on concentrations of nitrogen dioxide … A third runway won't make Heathrow any noisier or dirtier ...". The ad was published in the period before the Government’s decision to approve a third runway.

Issue

The complainant, an MP, challenged whether the claims:

1. "A third runway won't make Heathrow any noisier or dirtier"; and

2. "... it won't get the green light unless local air quality meets stringent EU standards on concentrations of nitrogen dioxide"

were misleading and could be substantiated.

CAP Code (Edition 11)

Response

1. & 2. BAA Ltd (BAA), responding on behalf of Future Heathrow said the claims were partly based on the Government's White Paper of December 2003 ("The Future of Air Transport") and its consultation paper ("Adding Capacity at Heathrow"), published in November 2007.  BAA said the White Paper stated a third runway would have to meet specific environmental conditions relating to noise and local air quality: that a third runway would result in an area where aircraft noise was 57 decibels, or no higher than with two runways in 2002; concentrations of nitrogen dioxide (NO2) around Heathrow would remain within the new EU limit of 40 micrograms of NO2 per cubic metre. They said the Consultation Paper noted the NO2 limit was exceeded around Heathrow in 2002 in a number of areas.  They said the Consultation Paper also reiterated that those environmental pre-conditions "remain valid".  BAA argued that it followed from that that a third runway would not be allowed if it made Heathrow noisier (by expanding the 57-decibel noise footprint) or dirtier (by failing to bring down NO2 levels to comply with the 40-microgram limit). They also referred to the Transport Secretary's statement to Parliament on 15 January 2009.

BAA said the broad policy principles of the White Paper were always meant to be conditional on further work that would be undertaken as part of the consultation.  They said the statement on 15 January 2009 made clear that, after extensive modelling and further work, six years after the White Paper, the Government was stating that it firmly believed that a third runway could be built within the strict environmental limits that it had laid out.  They said it also made clear that, as an added safeguard, the Government had introduced independent monitoring to ensure that the environmental limits could not be breached.  They argued that, given that unequivocal policy decision made by Government to Parliament, and BAA's previous and subsequent public assurances to abide by such a legally binding and independently monitored regime, the claim "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.

BAA pointed out that it had been announced that the limits were legally binding and that two independent regulators would monitor those limits and would have legal powers to enforce a limit on flights to prevent those limits from being breached.  They believed the issue of whether air quality models were uncertain or not was therefore irrelevant, because there would still be an absolute guarantee that environmental limits were legally enforceable and readers could therefore be confident that a third runway would not lead to additional pollution.

BAA said it had announced on 26 November 2008 that it reaffirmed its understanding that the environmental limits were absolute and immutable and that there would never be any other option but to meet the strict environmental conditions around a third runway. They said the announcement also called on the Government to appoint an independent assessor to ensure public confidence in the process and, following that, the Government's policy announcement on 15 January 2009 appointed the Civil Aviation Authority and the Environment Agency as independent assessors. BAA argued that, regardless of that, both BAA's public commitment and the Government's ultimate policy announcement were about the independent monitoring of the environmental conditions and not the substance of whether the limits could be broken.  They believed it had been clear from December 2003 onwards that if a third runway at Heathrow was to be built, the strict environmental conditions would be absolute and unyielding.

BAA said it was not their role to explain Government policy but, as they understood it, the UK Government, in common with other EU member states, had sought a derogation from the 2010 deadline to give itself more time to achieve compliance with the NO2 directive.  They said the directive was not about Heathrow but about concentrations of NO2 across the EU. They said there were currently many locations in the UK that did not comply with the proposed 40-microgram limit.  They asserted that Heathrow had by no means the highest NO2 concentrations and that data from 2004 suggested there were 17 locations with higher concentrations in Greater London alone.  They said the reason other countries were seeking derogations also had nothing to do with Heathrow and underlined the point that NO2 came from many sources besides aviation.  They argued that any suggestion that the Government was seeking a derogation purely to create an easier NO2 regime for Heathrow was not true.

Assessment

1. Upheld

The ASA noted the White Paper (2003) said the Governments policy was to take all practicable steps to prevent any deterioration in the noise climate at Heathrow and that a third runway could only be considered if the surrounding area at 57 decibels in 2002 did not increase, and also emphasised a commitment to the mandatory air quality limit values for NO2 set out in EU Directive 1999/30/EC. We noted the Consultation paper (2007) said the Government believed a third runway could be added at Heathrow and, from 2020, could be operational within the noise and air quality limits. We noted the Decision following the Consultation (2009), published after the ad appeared, said a third runway at Heathrow was approved subject to a commitment not to increase the size of the area significantly affected by aircraft noise from 2002 levels, and confidence that the UKs European obligations with respect to air quality could be met. However, we also noted the White Paper stated "The Government recognises that there is some uncertainty in the techniques available for estimating future concentrations of pollutants.  Even with full implementation of this package of tough measures, and making aggressive assumptions about future developments in aircraft and motor vehicle technology, the evidence of our further work suggests that substantial areas around Heathrow, containing the homes of many hundreds or thousands of people, would be subject to exceedences of the mandatory air quality limit value. Such exceedences would not be acceptable, and would be against the law.  However, our overall assessment is that, within the 2015-2020 timescale, there would be a substantially better prospect of avoiding exceedences, in particular because it would allow more time to develop improved technologies, for both aircraft and road vehicles, to tighten standards, and to achieve widespread use of the improved technologies in road and aircraft fleets".

We considered that the claim "A third runway won't make Heathrow any noisier or dirtier" was presented as an absolute fact and that readers would understand from it that a third runway would definitely not create more dirt or noise than the current levels at Heathrow without a third runway.  We noted the evidence referred to by BAA stated that a third runway was subject to commitments not to raise noise levels together with a commitment to meeting EU targets for NO2 levels. However, we considered that such a stipulation did not guarantee that existing levels would not increase with the construction of a third runway, particularly in the short term.  We also noted the White Paper suggested that the levels could be breached.  

We acknowledged that the principles of the White Paper were only intended to be conditional on further work that would be undertaken as part of the consultation, but were still concerned that it had reported genuine concerns about the levels around Heathrow.  We noted the statement of the Minister for Transport of 15 January 2009 made clear the Government believed a third runway could be built within the noise limits set and said their forecasts predicted  that EU limits for NO2 would be met in the UK by 2020 even with airport expansion.  However, we also understood that there was a well-publicised, significant difference of opinion as to whether the limits would be met.

We noted BAA's call for, and the Government's appointment of, the two independent assessors of the limits were made after the ad appeared on 24 September. However, we considered that, especially given that the ad appeared before those dates, readers would not be aware of those assessors and would infer from the ad that a third runway would definitely not create more dirt or noise than the current levels at Heathrow without a third runway. We considered that they would not expect it to mean that action would be taken on the noise and air levels, should independent assessors notice a problem.  We noted Future Heathrow and BAA firmly believed that the noise and air limits would not be breached, but considered that the evidence we had seen was not sufficient to justify an absolute claim that noise and pollution would not increase following the construction of a third runway.  We concluded that the claim "A third runway won't make Heathrow any noisier or dirtier" was likely to mislead.  

On this point, the ad breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 and 3.2 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness) and 49.1 and 49.3 (Environmental Claims).

2. Upheld

We noted the statement of the Transport Minister Lord Adonis on 15 January 2009, in which he said that the Government was committed to meeting the EU target set for 2010 of an annual average of no more than 40 micrograms of NO2 per cubic metre, with a possible extension for reaching that limit until 2015. We noted Lord Adonis also said the UK did not comply with that limit at present, largely as a result of emissions from motor vehicles, and that, immediately around Heathrow, action would be necessary to ensure the air quality limits were met by 2015. However, their forecasts predicted that they would be meeting the limits by 2020, even with airport expansion.

We considered that readers could understand from the claim that the third runway would not be built unless the EU target was in place before the third runway got the go ahead and that the target continued to be met after the runway was in operation. Although we appreciated the Government was committed to meeting EU standards for NO2 levels by 2020, including Heathrow's expansion, we considered that that was not equivalent to the claim that Heathrow would not "get the green light unless local air quality meets stringent EU standards on concentrations of nitrogen dioxide". We understood that the 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. We considered that the claim did not make that position clear and concluded that it was likely to mislead.

On this point, the ad breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 and 3.2 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness) and 49.1 and 49.3 (Environmental Claims).

Action

The ad must not appear again in its current form.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)