Richmond Council has formally objected to the proposed expansion of Heathrow Airport, citing significant concerns over noise, air quality, climate change, economic viability, and surface access.
The council's Special Standing Committee on Heathrow met on Wednesday, August 12, 2026, to approve its detailed response to the government's consultation on the Heathrow Expansion National Policy Statement (HENPS).
The council's response argues that the government has not adequately made the case for expansion, and that local communities should not bear the brunt of increased harm. Key objections include:
Assessment of Need: The council disputes the government's assessment of need, stating that existing airport capacity in the South East is sufficient and that less harmful alternatives have not been fully explored. Richmond Council believes that the HENPS does not adequately explain why the objectives of Heathrow expansion could not be met through a more balanced package of alternatives. These might include making better use of existing airport capacity, strengthening alternative modes of transport including rail links, demand management, targeted support for regional airports, substitution of domestic and short-haul flights by rail where feasible, and capacity growth in locations where the environmental and community impacts would be less severe. Since the 2018 ANPS, additional capacity has been approved or advanced at other airports, including Gatwick, Luton, Stansted, and London City, suggesting existing capacity may be sufficient.
Noise, Respite, and Quality of Life: The proposed noise test is considered too permissive, masking severe impacts on certain communities. Richmond Council advocates for a wider range of noise metrics, including single-event and frequency-based measures, which would allow for better surveying of overflight frequency and route concentration, as well as the availability and quality of respite periods. The current 'permissive' noise test relies heavily on averaged noise contours, which can mask the severe impacts on certain communities of repeated, concentrated or more frequent overflight. The council advocates for protection of outdoor spaces like Richmond Park, and the preservation of runway alternation and predictable respite. The proposed six-and-a-half-hour restriction on night flights is deemed insufficient. Councillor Julia Neden-Watts emphasised residents' strong feelings regarding noise pollution.
Air Quality and Public Health: The air quality test is criticised for focusing on avoiding legal breaches rather than protecting public health. Richmond Council's response calls for HENPS to align with World Health Organisation guidance and with local Air Quality Action Plans. The implication of not meeting this guidance is that improvements in London's air quality, achieved through local and regional efforts, would be treated as spare capacity to accommodate additional airport-related emissions, rather than being protected for public health. The council calls for more localised modelling that considers cumulative impacts.
Climate Change and Carbon Emissions: The council believes the climate change test is too permissive, allowing additional aviation emissions to be absorbed within national carbon budgets. The council expresses concern over the reliance on 'speculative technologies' such as sustainable aviation fuel, hydrogen-powered or electric aircraft, fleet improvements, and other future technologies. The council's position is that their timing, scale, and deliverability remain uncertain and should not be used to justify a major increase in airport capacity.
Economic Growth: The council questions the economic case for expansion. According to government appraisals, the projected GDP uplift is around 0.05% by 2056, a significant downgrade from earlier claims of up to 0.5%. The Department for Transport's appraisal shows a negative net present value for expansion ranging from around -£23.4 billion to -£62.5 billion once monetised social and environmental costs are factored in. These costs include carbon emissions, noise pollution, air quality degradation, and other negative externalities. Any expansion should be contingent on measurable local economic benefits.
Surface Access and Transport Impacts: The proposed surface access requirements are found to be insufficiently binding, funded, or enforceable. Richmond Council argues that improved southern rail access should be treated as a prerequisite for expansion, not a supporting aspiration. Without funded and deliverable rail access from the South and West before additional capacity is released, expansion risks increasing road-based access, congestion, emissions, and pressure on local transport networks. The proposed increase in car parking is seen as undermining sustainable travel commitments.
Mitigation, Compensation, and Enforceability: The council believes that the proposed mitigation measures are not currently deliverable, effective, or proportionate. The HENPS relies too heavily on broad commitments, future assumptions, monitoring, adaptive management, and compensation, rather than demonstrating how adverse impacts would be avoided or reduced at source. Specific concerns include: acoustic insulation being insufficient for outdoor spaces and valued open spaces like Richmond Park and Kew Gardens; community compensation not being a substitute for avoiding and reducing harm; surface access being insufficiently binding, funded, or enforceable, with a weakening of the 'no more cars' commitment; flood risk, drainage, and water quality requiring stronger treatment with a catchment-wide approach and a SuDS-first strategy; and monitoring and enforcement being insufficiently robust, with a need for genuinely enforceable controls and clear consequences for non-compliance.
During the meeting, residents and campaign groups, including Peter Willan of the Richmond Heathrow Campaign and Robert Tudway, echoed these concerns. Councillor Chris Varley highlighted the potential displacement of housing due to expansion.
The council's formal response will be submitted to the government by the deadline of September 1, 2026. The council also submitted evidence to the House of Commons Transport Select Committee, which is scrutinising the HENPS. The full details of the council's response can be found in the Public reports pack and Supplementary Agenda.
