Eco-town's green benefit exaggerated, ASA rules
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.The Government has admitted exaggerating the environmental credentials of a planned eco-town.
In an advert seeking the public's views on 5,000 proposed homes near Lichfield in Staffordshire, the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) claimed the development would be built on a brownfield site. But the department later admitted that most of the Curborough eco-town would swallow up open countryside.
The Advertising Standards Authority has upheld a complaint about the Government's claims. But it dismissed a complaint about claims in the advert that up to half of the development would be affordable housing. Although no decision had been made, the ASA said the Government has promised that between 30 and 50 per cent of eco-towns will be affordable housing.
The Government announced 15 potential sites for eco-towns with environmental features such as cycle lanes in April. Developers pulled out of the Curborough eco-town in July, following fierce local opposition.
The ASA said: "The DCLG acknowledged that the documentation was factually inaccurate and the majority of the proposed site was on greenfield land and only partly on the site of the former Fradley airfield. They believed an error had been made in preparing the consultation document, which was repeated in the subsequent ad."
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments