Jack's statement:
Today, Heathrow Airport has unveiled a revised set of expansion plans following the Government’s decision earlier this year to press ahead with the construction of a third runway.
I want to be clear, I have long campaigned against the third runway: I continue to oppose a third runway at Heathrow. It is a sticking plaster solution to the long-running issue of airport capacity. We want a better, not bigger, neighbour. A third runway is not a simple question of expansion like at Gatwick or Luton, it is effectively a new airport (one bigger than any other British airport than Heathrow itself) on the same site. The cumulative impacts of noise, air pollution and congestion - whilst they each can be mitigated in some way, and I thank Heathrow for its constructive engagement with myself - are ultimately insurmountable challenges to the quality of life of my constituents.
We need measures that improve noise respite and ensure fair distribution of flight paths - particularly through runway alternation. I thank Heathrow for their progress on that front as the Cranford Agreement has fallen away, enabling more equitable distribution: Easterly alternation plans are, on-balance, positive. In any third runway scenario, I would seek to see this principle respected and have received verbal assurances from Heathrow that that would be the case. I am more sceptical of the alternate proposed shorter runway, as not all aircraft may be able to use it, potentially frustrating alternation.
This is also not a financially straightforward expansion. Heathrow is already one of the most expensive airport projects of its kind, with the expansion estimated at £49 billion. Yet it would deliver just a 50% increase in capacity. Heathrow's proposals rely on the regulated asset base (RAB) model, which risks pushing up passenger charges and increasing the financial burden. The scale of the investment raises serious doubts about the airport’s competitiveness and long-term economic return.
Whilst I am reassured that the direct expansion will be funded with private capital, and not taxpayers’, there will need to be significant public investment for example on Western and Southern access rail access routes. These are essential if the airport is to deliver any of the claimed economic benefits and mitigate traffic and pollution. Without clear plans and guarantees, communities risk being left with increased road congestion, air pollution, and strain on local infrastructure.
Heathrow’s expansion cannot be judged on aviation capacity alone. It must be scrutinised for its real economic value, its environmental costs, and its impact on the day-to-day lives of my constituents. On all these fronts, I will continue to stand firmly against the third runway.
