HAVE YOUR SAY ON THE HEATHROW CONSULTATION ✈️

Deadline: 1 September 2026

💚 STEP ONE: COPY AND PASTE THE BELOW TEXT (edit to suit if you wish)

💚 STEP TWO: SEND TO henpsconsultation@dft.gov.uk + copy your MP! Or fill in the online form

💚 STEP THREE: LET US KNOW YOU SENT IT USING THE FORM OPPOSITE (takes 30 secs) ➡️

DRAFT COPY:

Opposition to Heathrow Expansion :  HENPS Consultation

Dear Heathrow Expansion Consultation Team,

I’m a deeply concerned [parent/carer/grandparent/teacher etc] writing to you to respond to the Draft Heathrow Expansion National Policy Statement: consultation on proposed amendments.

I am copying in my MP, so that they are aware of my views. I am really worried about the proposed third runway, and feel strongly that this project should not go ahead.

The project poses a very real threat to the future of my [children / grandchildren], adding 8-9 megatonnes of Co₂ annually, when we desperately need to save every fraction of a degree of warming, merely to keep the climate stable enough to sustain their lives.

The expansion would increase the health risks to local families who already face a 24% higher stroke risk, 21% heart disease risk compared to low noise areas. For our kids this means more sleep disruption and respiratory issues from worsening air quality.

Not to mention the questionable economics, costing us up to £62 billion.

I would also like to raise the inadequate consultation, that fails to allow for meaningful engagement. No doubt carefully timed during summer holidays when many families are juggling childcare, the consultation fails to facilitate genuine community input.

An expansion to Heathrow airport and the hundreds of thousands of additional flights this would enable each year with their associated emissions poses a threat to the future of the planet for [my children / the next generation].

My answers to the consultation questions are as follows.

My name is [NAME]

My email address is [email[

I am responding as [an individual]

I disagree that there is a need for the proposed expansion of Heathrow Airport. This is because it would produce a huge amount of harmful emissions, which the government does not have a convincing or costed plan to mitigate. The scale of the emissions from the new runway threaten the UK’s ability to achieve our carbon budgets or meet the 2050 net zero target. In addition, the government’s own numbers show that the third runway would cost us up to £62 billion. The economic costs of the increase in noise and air pollution would also be really high. The UK’s focus should resolutely shift toward sustainable transport solutions that reduce overall aviation demand rather than expanding capacity at the UK’s most polluting airport, following the example of other European countries.

Four tests:

I do not believe that the Government's proposed tests are strong enough to ensure Heathrow expansion could happen without unacceptable impacts. There is no feasible way that the expansion scheme could meet all four tests while protecting communities, public health and the environment. The proposed runway will harm efforts to make communities and their local areas safer and healthier.

One impact alone: The total carbon emissions per year of Heathrow by 2050 would be equivalent to that produced by the whole of Malawi. A country suffering some of the world's most severe consequences from the climate crisis, and yet only contributing 0.01% of global carbon emissions. How is this alone an acceptable impact?

Air pollution:

Heathrow already sits in an area with significant air quality challenges, and London is already the city worst impacted in the world by air pollution from flights. While the ULEZ has reduced air pollution from road traffic, there are still up to 5,000 premature deaths each year in London due to dirty, dangerous air. Expansion risks new breaches of air quality legislation or worsening of existing breaches. The additional 276,000 aircraft will result in a 55% increase in NOX and 60% increase in PM2.5. All 22 of the monitors around Heathrow would currently fail the EU's lower limit values on NOX. It does not make sense for London to take sensible, effective action to reduce one source of air pollution, while the government drives forward airport expansion which will increase another source.

The government should not support a project that risks worsening illegal air pollution or exposing more people to harmful emissions. As it stands, the UK’s legal limits for air pollution are already significantly outdated and much weaker than the WHO’s international standards, which the UK must adopt to save lives, protect Londoners from dangerously dirty air, and protect our NHS. Any proposal to expand airports should be compared against the WHO’s evidence-based guidelines for safe air - not the UK’s weak and out-of-date legal limits.

Aircraft noise:

Flight paths have not been published and modelling based on indicative scenarios that are 12 years out of date. Up to 3.4 million people will be exposed to levels of aircraft noise that is deemed harmful to health. The consultation does not provide enough information about where aircraft would actually fly and what damage this could potentially do to those that live underneath or near flight paths. The noise modelling currently being used cannot provide reassurance to affected communities. These should be updated before any decision is made on this test.

Exposure to aircraft noise is known to damage health, wellbeing and quality of life. We have already seen significant impacts from the existing flight paths around Heathrow, and the proposed expansion would only exacerbate the problem.

Communities near Heathrow already face a 24% higher stroke risk, 21% higher heart disease risk, and 14% higher cardiovascular disease risk compared to low-noise areas. Expansion would expose an additional 325,000 people to significant noise pollution, with 2.2 million suffering increased exposure by 2050.

Climate change mitigation:

At a time when we are experiencing unprecedented heatwaves caused by the climate crisis, crop failures, excess deaths and a loss to the UK economy of over 1 Billion in a few months alone, expanding Heathrow would significantly increase aviation emissions at a time when the UK should categorically be reducing them.

The proposal would add between 4-6 million tonnes of carbon emissions every year, making it much harder for the UK to meet its climate commitments. The upper end of this range means aviation emissions would be twice as high in 2050 as recommended by the Committee on Climate Change.

The government should not support infrastructure that locks in decades of additional emissions and increases the burden on every other sector to cut carbon even further.

Economic growth across the country:

The government's own analysis raises serious doubts about the economic benefits of Heathrow expansion.The appraisal makes clear that it is not possible to establish that the project will produce additional growth rather than simply redistribute economic activity.

We also raise the cost to the UK and the world of adding to the climate crisis, when the heatwaves over the last months have cost the UK £1 Billion already.

The projected increase in GDP is extremely small (equivalent to pennies per person by the time it is realised in 2056), while the overall economic impacts caused by all the environmental and social harms would be negative, to the tune of £62 billion. The evidence also makes clear that much of any economic activity generated may simply be moved from elsewhere in the UK, while not actually creating overall growth.

Mitigation:

Many of the proposed safeguards rely on future monitoring, future plans or measures that have yet to be developed. Even if mitigation options were real and ready, the evidence presented in the Appraisal of Sustainability makes clear that the level of harm that a third runway will cause cannot simply be mitigated away.

Night flights:

Communities deserve meaningful protection from aircraft noise during the night. In reality this means that any flight ban should not just take into account when the aircraft take off or land, but the whole journey that the plane takes, which can still negatively affect those in the surrounding area. We disagree with defining the ban on scheduled night flights by the time a plane takes off or lands rather than by departure from and arrival to the terminal.

The government should support an 8-hour night flight ban, in line with World Health Organisation recommendations.

CNGI:

The argument that expansion at Heathrow is critical for growth is undermined by the Government’s own analysis, and therefore I do not agree that the third runway should be classified as Critical National Growth Infrastructure. It should not receive special status when the costs vastly outweigh the benefits. I am also concerned that this may be an attempt to make it more difficult to challenge the runway.

Compensation:

No amount of compensation can replace homes, communities, peace and quiet or people's health.The scheme’s impacts are not just financial; they affect health, family life, social cohesion and long-term community stability. It is devastating for thousands of people in their historical villages and communities to have compulsory purchase forced upon them, with huge amounts of uncertainty and stress. The fact that Heathrow has now launched a mental-health service for those in the compulsory purchase zone shows the negative impacts even before development consent has been granted. This can’t be measured in financial terms alone. The loss of these communities and homes will cause irreversible harm.

Surface access:

A larger airport will inevitably place a huge amount of increased pressure on the local roads and public transport. The increase in car traffic will further increase local noise and air pollution. In addition, the taxpayer must not be liable for the costs of the transport infrastructure that will be needed. For London to reach net zero, car traffic must be reduced by 27% between 2018 and 2030, a trajectory which is already off track. Any proposed airport expansion must demonstrate that it will not lead to any increase in motor traffic from current levels.The proposed public transport improvements need to be funded and deliverable before any expansion is considered.

Making Best Use:

It is incompatible with achieving the UK’s climate goals to try to maximise usage of existing high-carbon infrastructure. I do not agree that the Making Best Use policy should be updated in a way that supports Heathrow expansion. Any update should instead ensure that airport capacity policy is aligned with legal climate obligations and include a cumulative impact assessment of all planned airport expansions.

HENPS:

I disagree that the draft HENPS provides an effective framework for decision making. It is too permissive, relies far too heavily on future mitigation and over-optimistic assumptions about technological developments, and too willing to treat unresolved environmental and

community harms as manageable. It threatens to seriously harm the UK’s climate commitments, our economy, and local communities. A genuinely effective framework would require clear evidence that the project is compatible with legal and policy limits before it can progress, not after.

The planning framework should require clear evidence that Heathrow expansion complies with environmental and climate limits before it can proceed. It is also astonishing that the government wants to proceed with a project which its own analysis demonstrates will be economically negative.

Additional comments:

All the consultation documents demonstrate that Heathrow expansion would result in substantial environmental, health and social harms, including adding unnecessary jeopardy to the future of ALL children, while also failing to provide economic growth, or even harming our economy. The inevitable conclusion from assessment of the evidence presented is that that expansion is simply not in the public interest.

The evidence does not justify support for a third runway.

For these reasons, I urge the Government not to designate the Heathrow Expansion National Policy Statement and to withdraw support for Heathrow expansion.

Kind regards,

Name

Address

Contact Number