Construction of a third runway at Heathrow is likely to have significant adverse effects on the health and wellbeing of up to 3 million people living nearby, an official report has said, as the government launched the next stage of its rapid airport expansion plan.
An analysis for the Department for Transport has found that expanding London’s hub airport could have “major adverse” impacts on the health of the most local population.
Construction and operation of the third runway will worsen not just noise and air quality, but could also harm access to housing, education, healthcare, open space, and transport, the report by the consultants Aecom said. Heathrow’s expansion will impact water quality, weaken community identity and cohesion, worsen landscapes and townscapes, and affect climate change mitigation and adaptation, it added.
The impact analysis of the new policy said construction of a third runway would probably be beneficial for jobs, income, education, skills and training, but concluded: “Adverse effects are considered likely with regard to the other determinants which cover environmental and social considerations, and many of these have potential to be significant.”
While the report is expected to help shape measures to mitigate the effect on residents, it says the impacts cannot be fully offset. The DfT was approached for comment.
The disclosure came in supporting documents as the government announced another milestone in expansion, the accelerated publication for consultation of a draft national policy statement backing the third runway.
The transport secretary, Heidi Alexander, said: “Today’s consultation is a positive step towards realising the benefits of a third runway, by giving businesses, communities and the public the chance to help shape this key project at one of the world’s most successful hub airports.
“We are determined to move quickly and responsibly to set a framework for future expansion at Heathrow that will meet the needs of local people and the country on the key issues of noise, air quality, climate change and economic growth.”
MPs will vote on whether to approve the policy, which is now known as the Heathrow Expansion national policy statement rather than covering airports nationwide.
The previous policy statement was voted through under the Conservatives after the Airports Commission judged that only one runway could be built in south-east England without breaching climate commitments. Labour has since approved expansion at London’s Stansted, Luton and Gatwick airports.
The chancellor, Rachel Reeves, has been a champion of the third runway but is widely expected to leave office if Andy Burnham wins the Makerfield byelection and succeeds Keir Starmer as leader.
She said: “Growth is this government’s top priority, and we are backing the builders to get Britain moving. An expanded Heathrow would support over 60,000 good local jobs and deliver up to £42bn in benefits to the UK – strengthening vital links and improving connectivity across the country.”
Speaking at a conference in London, Reeves said: “Somebody had to bite the bullet … In the last 18 months, we’ve made more progress on Heathrow than the last government made in 14 years. And I am determined that by the time of the next election, there are spades in the ground.”
Heathrow is seeking to build a 3,500-metre runway, which would require the M25 motorway being moved and the compulsory purchase of about 800 homes. The scheme, which is estimated to cost £33bn, would allow the airport to operate up to 756,000 flights with up to 150 million passengers each year.
Heathrow’s chief executive, Thomas Woldbye, said the consultation on the third runway plan represented “something Britain has often found difficult in recent years – progress”.
He added: “Our plan is privately funded by some of the largest investors in the world, widely supported by businesses, trade unions and communities across the country and it’s ready to go after years of scrutiny. We will now focus on securing planning permission and delivering this vital project.”
Paul McGuinness, the chair of the No 3rd Runway Coalition, said the expansion plans were “lurching towards farce” and there would be a “decade of destruction” around the airport in bulldozing houses and land before any runway was built.
He said airlines would be forced to pay ever higher charges and could be outpriced, adding: “No wonder an airline boss has called it HS2 all over again. It seems extraordinary that this government seems committed to repeating those mistakes.”
Celeste Hick, the policy manager at the campaign group Aviation Environment Federation, said the government was rushing policy through “with very little meaningful consultation with the very people” who would pay the price – “communities living under the flight paths and those whose homes will be destroyed or rendered uninhabitable”.
