A profit-driven corporate giant has shown a disgraceful contempt for a community which was never expected to fight back. The 'Eco Park' Contractors, SITA, have been shamed by the Advertising Standards Authority for misleading Sunbury and Shepperton residents. If the Eco Park was such a fantastic and ground-breaking solution to our waste disposal problems, why did they try to deceive us by misrepresenting its environmental benefits? The illustrative drawings were misleading; the claim that it was a proven technology was untrue, as was their claim that the technology was operating successfully elsewhere.

The Campaign Group opposing the Eco Park (LOSRA, Charlton Village RA & Shepperton Against the Eco Park (SATEP)) has always contended that SITA UK, the contractors for the Eco Park at Charlton Lane had misrepresented the facility in their publicity literature and via the media. A complaint had been lodged with the Advertising Standards Authority and readers may remember that the findings of the ASA were appealed to The Independent Reviewer of ASA Adjudications, Sir Hayden Phillips (See article of 30th August).

As a consequence, the ASA has reviewed its original decision and its findings are summarised as follows:

The technology is not proven, as claimed by SITA. Shepperton would receive an untried, untested prototype gasification unit.

The reference sites that SITA claim are "operating successfully with emissions falling within predicted levels" has been ruled as misleading, unsubstantiated and also fail on environmental claims, as the quoted Dumfries site has suffered operational issues since inception and experiences emission breaches on an alarmingly regular basis.

Drawings used to illustrate the Development have also been deemed to be misleading, as the true scale of the buildings and height of the planned 49 metre stack were not accurately depicted.

Due to SITA's company policy of not holding large public meetings, the majority of their public consultation has been conducted through awareness-raising tools such as Newsletters, their website, media articles and other marketing materials. However, with this ASA ruling deeming SITA's publicity material to be flawed at a basic level, it must now be arguable that SITA's claims to have held satisfactory public consultations are themselves unsupportable. For Press Release, click here. For the ASA adjudication, click here.