The Special Standing Committee on Heathrow met to discuss and approve the council's response to the government's consultation on the Heathrow Expansion National Policy Statement (HENPS). The committee heard from council officers and invited guests, ultimately agreeing to submit a detailed objection to the proposed expansion, citing concerns over noise, air quality, climate change, economic viability, and surface access.

Heathrow Expansion National Policy Statement Consultation

The committee focused on the council's draft response to the government's consultation on the Heathrow Expansion National Policy Statement (HENPS). Jamie Fisher, Head of Policy and Strategy, presented the council's intended submission, which maintains a longstanding opposition to Heathrow expansion. The response argues that the government has not adequately made the case for expansion, that the proposed four tests for expansion are too weakly defined, and that local communities should not bear the brunt of increased harm.

Key points of the council's response include:

• Assessment of Need: The council disagrees with the government's assessment of need for expansion, arguing that existing airport capacity in the South East is sufficient and that less harmful alternatives, such as better use of existing airports and improved rail connectivity, have not been adequately explored.
• Noise, Respite, and Quality of Life: The council considers the proposed noise test to be too permissive, relying on averaged noise contours that mask the severe impact on certain communities. They advocate for a wider range of noise metrics, protection of outdoor spaces like Richmond Park, and the preservation of runway alternation and predictable respite. The proposed 6.5-hour restriction on night flights is seen as insufficient.
• Air Quality and Public Health: The council argues the air quality test is too weak, focusing on avoiding legal breaches rather than protecting public health. They call for alignment with World Health Organisation guidance and local Air Quality Action Plans, and for more localised modelling that considers cumulative impacts from aircraft emissions, surface traffic, and construction. Concerns were raised about the underestimation of nitrogen dioxide, PM2.5, and ultrafine particulate matter, and the lack of adequate monitoring and mitigation strategies for these pollutants.
• Climate Change and Carbon Emissions: The council believes the climate change test is too permissive, allowing additional aviation emissions to be absorbed within national carbon budgets. They express concern over the reliance on speculative technologies like sustainable aviation fuel and call for independent verification that expansion is compatible with carbon budgets and net zero targets.
• Economic Growth: The council questions the economic case for expansion, noting that the government's own appraisals show a marginal GDP uplift and a negative net present value when social and environmental costs are considered. They argue that economic benefits should not be counted if they merely displace activity from other regions and that any expansion should be contingent on measurable local economic benefits.
• Surface Access and Transport Impacts: The council finds the proposed surface access requirements insufficiently binding, funded, or enforceable. They argue that percentage public transport mode-share targets are inadequate without absolute motor traffic limits and that improved southern rail access should be a prerequisite for expansion. The proposed increase in car parking is seen as undermining commitments to sustainable travel.
• Mitigation, Compensation, and Enforceability: The council believes the proposed mitigation measures are not deliverable, effective, or proportionate. They advocate for a clear mitigation hierarchy prioritising avoidance over compensation and highlight the limitations of acoustic insulation for outdoor spaces and the need for stronger safeguards for flood risk, drainage, and water quality.

During the discussion, several guests, including Peter Willan of the Richmond Heathrow Campaign, Robert Tudway, and Neil Spurrier of the Teddington Action Group, provided further input. They echoed many of the council's concerns, particularly regarding the lack of alternatives, the definition of Critical National Growth Infrastructure (CNGI), the inadequacy of proposed mitigations, and the need for clearer communication to the public about the proposals' weaknesses. Councillor Chris Varley raised concerns about the potential displacement of housing due to expansion, and Councillor Julia Neden-Watts highlighted the strong feelings of residents regarding noise pollution.

The committee ultimately recommended noting the council's objections to the draft HENPS and approving the key points of the council's response to the consultation, subject to further changes. The council will submit its formal response to the government by the deadline of 1 September 2026.