‘Heathrow third runway is the wrong answer to the wrong question’

My long-standing opposition to expansion at Heathrow has been a cornerstone of my twenty years as the MP for Hammersmith and as Leader of the Council before that. The arguments for a third runway claim to support growth and national interest, yet fundamentally ignore the realities of our climate obligations, public health, and the long-term wellbeing of communities like my constituents.

The so-called economic benefits have been consistently overstated while the costs to public health, residents, and the public purse remain underplayed. Let us be clear: Heathrow expansion is not essential to London’s economy. London already attracts more business travellers and tourists each year than any other city in the world, and most have no strong preference for which airport they use.

Further, Heathrow’s own data show a persistent decline in business traffic: down 20 percent since 2019 and showing no sign of recovery in their forward planning. The future projected growth is primarily leisure flights and this only will help to deepen the tourism deficit which currently sits at around £43bn per annum.

‘Costs will inevitably be passed onto ordinary passengers’

Recent analysis from S&P suggests that Heathrow will struggle to afford expansion. They conclude that a third runway would require an unprecedented flood of capital from shareholders to make the financial case viable.

However, Heathrow’s own business plan for the next five-year regulatory period includes just £2 billion of actual shareholder capital out of a £10bn investment. The rest will be raised through borrowing and the debt repaid through an eye-watering 17% increase in landing charges to airlines.

Such costs are inevitably passed straight onto ordinary passengers. No wonder the airlines are not supportive of the current proposals and recognise expansion cannot take place at any cost.

To make matters worse, expansion at Heathrow would require major upgrades to the road and rail network at an estimated public cost of £5–15 billion (in 2018 prices). Heathrow has said it will pay for the runway itself but has not ruled out seeking additional public funds for these vital surface access improvements—funds that could be much better spent on other public transport projects in London or spread across the regions of the UK.

READ MORE: ‘Labour must soar past Britain’s blockers and build a runway to growth’

‘Expansion could double number of people exposed to harmful aircraft noise’

It is vital that we do not forget about the human cost in all this. At least 781 homes will be bulldozed under Heathrow’s proposal. Another 4,750 could become uninhabitable thanks to their proximity to the new runway. A third runway will increase delays at junctions and result in slower average speeds on local road networks, incurring costs and potentially increasing emissions.

Local communities under the flightpath already endure unacceptable levels of noise and air pollution, with devastating impacts on health and quality of life. Yet, a third runway would bring up to 270,000 additional flights each year, that’s 756 more every day – which is the same number that currently arrive and depart at Gatwick! 28% of all people across Europe that are impacted by noise pollution already live under Heathrow’s flight paths, a higher total than Heathrow’s five biggest European competitors combined. Expansion of flight numbers at the scale proposed will potentially double the number of people exposed to the harmful effects of aircraft noise.

Subscribe here to our daily newsletter roundup of Labour news, analysis and comment– and follow us on Bluesky, WhatsApp, X and Facebook.

‘Framing opposition as ‘blockers’ is unhelpful’

Aviation is already one of the fastest-growing contributors to greenhouse gas emissions and the potential for alternative aviation fuels to reduce emissions is vastly outweighed by the sector’s projected growth. No credible climate test can be passed by any new runway at Heathrow, and to claim otherwise is to wish away both science and the legal targets this Government wishes to uphold.

Framing opposition to major projects or developments, whether from local residents, environmental experts or elected representatives as “blockers” is unhelpful. Genuine and long-term growth will only be achieved when we invest in a fully integrated public transport system, not by repeating the old mistakes of carbon-intensive mega-projects. Governments and scheme promoters should not ignore considered objections that advocate long-term sustainability.

The Government’s current position appears at odds with its own policy tests, which demanded that any airport expansion deliver on climate, air quality and noise, nationwide connectivity, and value for money. A third runway unequivocally fails on all these counts. Heathrow expansion is an outdated answer to the wrong question. Britain’s future prosperity depends not on more tarmac, but on leadership that prioritises sustainability, community well-being, and genuine, inclusive economic renewal

• SHARE: If you have anything to share that we should be looking into or publishing about this story – or any other topic involving Labour– contact us (strictly anonymously if you wish) at [email protected].
• SUBSCRIBE: Sign up to LabourList’s morning email here for the best briefing on everything Labour, every weekday morning.
• DONATE: If you value our work, please chip in a few pounds a week and become one of our supporters, helping sustain and expand our coverage.
• PARTNER: If you or your organisation might be interested in partnering with us on sponsored events or projects, email [email protected].
• ADVERTISE: If your organisation would like to advertise or run sponsored pieces on LabourList‘s daily newsletter or website, contact our exclusive ad partners Total Politics at [email protected].