Third Heathrow runway prompts a typical Parliamentary response

This is Blog No 113

Over the years, Parliamentary announcements of mega-infrastructure follow a predictable pattern. First comes the Ministerial exposition – usually unabashed advocacy tempered by an unconvincing assertion that ‘we haven’t made up our minds’. Then comes opposition challenges to the basic assumptions followed by widespread calls for effective consultation!

Heidi Alexander’s announcement of the third Heathrow runway (22 October 2025) exhibited all these characteristics in spades - prompting the very questions that have bedevilled HS2, Nuclear power stations, New Towns and other nationally significant infrastructure projects. She stands in a long line of Transport Secretaries who have launched similar plans only to see them flounder in the face of political opposition or financial unviability. Look therefore at the small print – and note how she is hedging her bets.

She may need to, for the Government is clear that this must be paid for by the private sector. I seem to remember generations of such optimism right from the Channel Tunnel to the Hinkley Point nuclear power station – quickly abandoned when subject to any form of reality. But she also faces pressure from the environmental lobby and therefore proposes to assess the scheme against four tests (it’s usually four!), satisfying the requirements of i) economic growth ii) air quality iii) noise and iv) climate change obligations.  Note what’s missing. Thers is no test of public acceptability!

Of course there is a reason for this. Everyone knows that homeowners under the Heathrow flightpaths and residents in adjacent areas will oppose the runway. Equally, many millions living far away from the noise and inconvenience may be in favour. The whole point of the 2008 Planning Act was to separate the ‘What do want to build?’ issue from the “Where should we build it?” The first question was handled through a NATIONAL POLICY STATEMENT (NPSs) and subject to consultation. The second is handled through the NSIP planning process - currently being streamlined.

What went wrong is that a whole raft of NPSs were adopted ten years ago, though with little meaningful consultation – but the Airports NPS (ANPS) was subject to perpetual fudge and fumble and only adopted in 2018. The Government now proposes to review the NPS and “if amendments are needed … we expect to consult on an amended policy statement by next summer.”  Elsewhere she says “We will consult on an amended ANPS if that is required following the review…"   I think that amounts to a commitment - but I wouldn't stake my life on it!

No wonder local communities are anxious. They have been here before, and in the long tradition of MPs enthusiasm for consultation being in direct proportion to their constituents eagerness to stop something, we had the predictable pleas for meaningful engagement:

• … in my constituency, 4,500 homes will be demolished or rendered unliveable; 15,000 people will lose their homes; we will lose three schools; and whole communities will go. My constituents want to ask: where are they going to live? Where will their children be educated, and what will happen to their community?                                                                                (John McDonnell MP, Hayes & Harlington)
• How can …(my constituents) … be reassured that their views will be taken into account, unlike in the         top-down centralised planning policies that this Government have implemented ?                                                                           (Monica Harding MP, Esher & Walton)
• I welcome the mentions of noise in the Secretary of State’s statement; will she commit to a binding noise limit within the new strategy, as well as strong environmental limits and full community consultation in the process?                                                                                                        (Fleur Anderson MP, Putney)
• I echo colleagues’ comments about the need for meaningful engagement with the communities most affected. Can she confirm that the engagement will not just be the formal consultation the draft statement,but that there will be meaningful early engagement for the communities affected?                     
•                           (Danny Beales MP, Uxbridge & S Ruislip)

None of this is easy. The policy decisions themselves are difficult, and the public is often divided. From a consultation perspective, I can see several risks which Ministers need to think about seriously.

1. In the era of economic-growth-trumps-everything, and opponents are branded as ‘blockers’, there is a clear risk of overt pre-determination. Rachel Reeves has apparently claimed a third runway will be operational by 2035. She should read Sally Gimson’s book on HS2! (‘Off the rails’ -reviewed here)
2. There is a question-mark over any consultation on an ‘amended’ ANPS. Heidi Alexander told Parliament “The review of the airports national policy statement is site-specific for Heathrow”. And to emphasise the point, “The ANPS is specific to Heathrow.” If this is true, then it will not be a National Policy statement at all and will seek to sidestep the real concerns of net-zero advocates about the massive expansion of airports planned elsewhere in the country. Nothing being dreamt up in the Planning & Infrastructure Bill would stop a massive judicial review on this aspect.
3. Conducting local consultations will be a challenge if and when so many overarching decisions appear to have been taken already. Will they be able to give their opinions about the four tests and whether Government assurances on air quality and noise are credible … or acceptable? And should those consultations be undertaken by a wholly independent body rather than those seeking approval for their own projects?

This Blog takes no sides on a contentious decision like this. But it is essential to preserve the integrity of consultation – and to warn against its misuse. As always, what’s important is to ask the RIGHT questions of the RIGHT people in the RIGHT way at the RIGHT time – something that we have not done well over the long history of potential Heathrow expansion.

Much of this is because we are still ambivalent about the role each consultation is meant to perform and why my proposals for a new FOUR FUNCTIONS FRAMEWORK (currently being reviewed by 20+ consultation experts - and available soon) will help clarify a confused and convoluted situation.

Rhion H Jones LL.B

October 2025

For more like this, and to receive the monthly Consultation Catch-up, click here