Council Reaffirms Opposition to Heathrow Expansion

Hillingdon Council has reaffirmed its strong opposition to a third runway at Heathrow Airport, urging the government to significantly amend its draft National Policy Statement on Heathrow Expansion (HENPS).

In a formal response to the government's consultation, the council stated that the case for expansion has not been proven, citing uncertain economic benefits and significant, unavoidable impacts on local communities, public health, and the environment.

Councillor Steve Tuckwell, Leader of Hillingdon Council, emphasised the borough's long-standing opposition, stating: For the people of Hillingdon, Heathrow expansion is not a policy debate or a piece of infrastructure. It directly impacts their homes, their communities and their quality of life. Our residents have already lived with decades of noise, pollution, congestion, blight and uncertainty, and are now being asked to accept even greater impacts in return for benefits that remain uncertain and heavily disputed.

The council disputes the economic benefits presented for Heathrow expansion, stating that the economic case has weakened considerably and that the benefits remain uncertain and heavily disputed . The council notes that the principal economic appraisal identifies a negative Net Present Value when costs and benefits are assessed in the round and that the Spatial Computable General Equilibrium (SCGE) modelling... identifies a modest positive effect on UK GDP through connectivity and productivity benefits which is extremely small, amounting to approximately 0.05% of GDP by 2056 . Furthermore, approximately 88% of the GDP gain identified by the SCGE analysis derives from airport construction expenditure rather than improvements in connectivity. The council considers that the evidence does not convincingly demonstrate that Heathrow expansion represents the most appropriate solution to the UK's future aviation needs and that alternative aviation strategies have not been adequately tested.

The council's response highlights concerns that the draft HENPS lacks robust safeguards, clear decision-making criteria, and meaningful consequences for failure, potentially allowing expansion to proceed without adequately protecting residents and the environment.

Key concerns raised include:

• Weak Decision-Making Tests: The four principal tests (economic growth, air quality, noise, and climate change) lack clear pass/fail criteria. The council believes the draft HENPS lacks meaningful pass or fail criteria for its tests, with few clear requirements to achieve specific outcomes and little clarity on the circumstances in which development consent would be refused . The draft HENPS contains no meaningful failure points, no clear red lines and no obvious route to a decision of 'no' , leading the council to call for clear thresholds, red lines and enforceable requirements and meaningful routes to refusal .
• Community Impacts: The policy fails to give adequate weight to community wellbeing, with no dedicated test requiring Heathrow to demonstrate that affected communities would be better off as a consequence of expansion. Hillingdon Council refers to significant, unavoidable impacts on local communities, public health, and the environment, including increased noise, worsening environmental pressures and consequential effects on the health, wellbeing and quality of life of local communities . The council also notes major adverse air quality effects and major adverse health effects for vulnerable groups as identified in the Government's own assessments.
• Governance and Accountability: There is insufficient independent oversight and limited clarity on consequences if commitments are not achieved, with a reliance on Heathrow monitoring its own performance.
• Surface Access: The plan relies on untested modal shift targets and future infrastructure improvements without clear funding or delivery strategies. The council states that the draft HENPS provides untested targets for public transport modal shifts without knowing a) that they are achievable, b) what interventions would be required to deliver them, or c) what the consequences would be if they are not met.
• Environmental Concerns: The policy is seen as managing harm rather than testing acceptability, with a heavy reliance on future technological advancements and mitigation measures that are not yet secured. The council expresses concern that the Climate Change Test relies heavily on future technological developments that are largely outside Heathrow's control , including sustainable aviation fuel (SAF), aircraft efficiency improvements, low-carbon propulsion systems and greenhouse gas removals . The current status and feasibility of these advancements are described as uncertain in terms of timing, availability, affordability and effectiveness . The policy largely assumes that these changes will occur rather than testing what happens if they do not .

The council is urging the government to introduce a fifth Community Impact Test to ensure that the effects on local communities are given equal weight to economic, climate, air quality, and noise considerations. They also call for stronger, enforceable mitigation measures, independent monitoring, and a fairer approach to sharing the benefits of expansion with the communities that host the airport. Hillingdon Council proposes a fairer approach to sharing the benefits of expansion by requiring applicants to demonstrate how economic benefits will be shared with host communities. Specific mechanisms envisioned include: requiring clear, measurable and enforceable commitments for employment, skills, local procurement and business opportunities ; establishing a permanent Business and Local Economy Fund financed by the Airport Operator to support local businesses, employment, skills, regeneration and supply chain participation; and ensuring that communities experiencing the greatest adverse impacts will be amongst the primary beneficiaries of the economic opportunities generated by the development . The council also suggests that Heathrow expansion should also be viewed as an opportunity to unlock the wider economic potential of locations that are strategically placed but currently constrained by poor connectivity , mentioning potential improvements to rail connectivity and a new Elizabeth Line station serving Stockley Park.

Councillor Tuckwell added: If expansion is to proceed, it should be under a robust and balanced framework that contains genuine safeguards, clear tests and meaningful routes to refusal, rather than a framework weighted heavily in favour of a future promoter.