Richmond Council has formally objected to the government's Heathrow Expansion National Policy Statement (HENPS), citing significant concerns over surface access, noise, air quality, and climate change. The council's Special Standing Committee on Heathrow met on Wednesday, August 12, 2026, to approve its detailed response to the government's consultation, which is due to be submitted by September 1, 2026.

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. Councillors highlighted that the consultation document itself is difficult for residents to understand, describing it as full of acronyms, it's heavy going and that for the majority of people, they've gone to sleep by the time they get to land. They are calling for sun journalism and for material to be much more aggressive and less gentle and precise, with a desire for information to be presented in a way that a 12-year-old student would grasp the issues that are at stake.

Key objections include:

  • Surface Access: The council finds the proposed surface access requirements insufficiently binding, funded, or enforceable. While the HENPS sets public transport mode-share targets, these are not supported by enough certainty about delivery. The policy should explain, before any expansion is approved, how the necessary transport improvements will be funded, secured, monitored, and enforced. Percentage mode-share targets are also insufficient on their own and should be accompanied by absolute motor traffic forecasts and limits. The council argues that improved southern rail access should be treated as a prerequisite for expansion, not as a supporting aspiration. Without a funded and deliverable rail solution in place before additional capacity is released, the surface access strategy would remain overly dependent on road-based access from the south and would risk worsening congestion, emissions, and pressure on local transport networks across West and South West London. The proposed massive increase in parking space and construction of enormous car parks further fatally undermines any commitment to greater sustainable access.
  • Noise, Respite, and Quality of Life: The council considers the proposed noise test too permissive, relying on averaged noise contours that mask severe impacts on certain communities. They advocate for the assessment to use 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 response argues that residents experience aircraft noise through daily disruption to sleep, work, study, and the tranquillity of green spaces, not through average contour levels alone. The final HENPS should require a clear, accessible, and transparent presentation of noise evidence, assumptions, baselines, modelling methods, scenarios, and conclusions. Recent reports from ANAS and ANNE must also be included and incorporated in the HENPS to provide a clearer picture of the number of people impacted by the scheme. The council also stresses the preservation of runway alternation and predictable respite.
  • Air Quality and Public Health: The council believes the air quality test is too weak, focusing on avoiding legal breaches rather than protecting public health. They call for alignment with World Health Organisation guidance and for more localised modelling that considers cumulative impacts. The council's position is that the evidence base for the HENPS does not provide sufficient borough-specific modelling for communities away from the airport boundary, despite the potential for aircraft emissions, passenger traffic, freight, construction, and induced traffic to affect the surrounding area. Any air quality assessment must include cumulative impacts from aircraft emissions, airport operations, freight vehicles, construction traffic, local road congestion, and induced traffic. It should not rely only on broad airport-focused modelling. Affected boroughs need localised, granular evidence agreeing baseline conditions before expansion and the potential impact of additional aircraft and surface transport emissions in communities under existing and future flight paths and along affected road corridors. The council's response calls for HENPS to align with World Health Organisation guidance and with local Air Quality Action Plans, including Richmond's Air Quality Action Plan 2025-2030, arguing that improvements in London's air quality should not be treated as spare capacity to accommodate additional airport-related emissions.
  • Climate Change and Carbon Emissions: The council is concerned that the climate change test allows additional aviation emissions to be absorbed within national carbon budgets, relying on speculative technologies. The council's response raises concern about the reliance placed on sustainable aviation fuel, hydrogen-powered or electric aircraft, fleet improvements, and other future technologies. The council's position is that these technologies may have a role in decarbonising aviation, but their timing, scale, and deliverability remain uncertain and should not be used to justify a major increase in airport capacity. The response also argues that non-CO2 impacts, including NOx, water vapour, and other aviation-related pollutants, should be assessed more robustly and quantified where possible, rather than treated largely in qualitative terms.
  • Economic Growth: The council questions the economic case for expansion, noting that government appraisals show a marginal GDP uplift and a negative net present value when social and environmental costs are considered.

During the meeting, councillors heard from council officers and guest speakers, including representatives from the Richmond Heathrow Campaign and the Teddington Action Group. Councillor Chris Varley raised concerns about the potential displacement of housing due to expansion, estimating that up to 5,500 homes could become uninhabitable, potentially making 17,000 people homeless.

Councillor Julia Neden-Watts highlighted the strong feelings of residents regarding noise pollution and the need for clearer communication about the proposals' weaknesses.

Further details on the council's response can be found in the Public reports pack for the Special Standing Committee on Heathrow meeting.