MP urges residents to oppose Heathrow third runway plans

I have always been clear that I oppose the expansion of Heathrow Airport and the proposed third runway. I have spoken in Parliament, led debates and worked with residents, local campaigners, councils and other MPs to make sure Putney’s concerns are heard. I will continue to do so.  

The proposed expansion is from 480,000 flights a year to 756,000 flights – that's 700 extra flights every day. This is an unacceptable cost to the people who already live under the flight paths, to our environment and to our ability to tackle climate change. The economic benefits are also uncertain.  

The Government is currently consulting on the Heathrow Expansion National Policy Statement, which will set the planning framework for future decisions on a third runway. The consultation closes on September 1. I strongly encourage residents to respond and make their views known. 

I have published guidance on my website to help residents understand the consultation and respond to it. This is an important opportunity to make sure our voices are heard. You can read my guide to the consultation on my website, and you don't have to answer every question. 

This whole project is likely to become an unaffordable mega-project like HS2. But holidaymakers will pay for it as the airport is already allowed to recover up to £320 million in early design and planning costs for a third runway from airlines which they will get by adding to ticket prices. This is just the start of the huge costs which Heathrow can't afford and the Government say they won't pay - so who will? 

Putney and Roehampton residents live with the relentless noise every day with flights coming every 90 seconds.  But there is at least currently some respite from aircraft noise. Heathrow switches between different approach routes, meaning that no single community is subjected to flights overhead continuously throughout the day. These new proposals put that respite time at risk.  

Air pollution is another major concern. People living in south-west London already experience the effects of poor air quality and increasing the number of flights through Heathrow risks putting even more pressure on the air we breathe.  

Air pollution has real consequences for people’s health, particularly for children and older people. The Government itself has recognised that air quality is one of the key tests that Heathrow expansion must meet. We should not proceed with a project that risks making air quality worse. 

Then there is the climate emergency. We cannot say we are serious about cutting emissions while simultaneously planning a huge increase in aviation capacity. Aviation remains one of the hardest sectors of the economy to decarbonise, and we should be reducing our dependence on high-carbon transport rather than building infrastructure that locks in more aviation for decades.  

The climate impacts of a third runway would add to the wider climate crisis, at a time when we are already seeing more extreme heat, droughts and flooding. We need to be honest about the choices we are making. If we are serious about meeting our climate commitments and protecting future generations, an expanded Heathrow is the wrong direction of travel. 

There is also a much bigger question about where we want growth to happen in Britain. Andy Burnham has said that one of the aims of his government is to see good growth in every postcode. There is a real risk that an expanded Heathrow would suck jobs and investment away from other parts of the country. Analysis based on the Government’s own figures suggests thousands of jobs could be displaced from regional airports, including in Birmingham and Manchester. 

That matters because it runs directly against the ambition of building stronger regional economies and devolving power and opportunity beyond London. Andy Burnham has rightly argued that infrastructure investment should not be concentrated in London at the expense of the rest of the country. If we are serious about delivering good growth across Britain, we should be investing in the infrastructure, skills and businesses that allow every region to thrive – not reinforcing the dominance of one airport in the South East.