Govt must define 'meaningless' tests for future airport expansion

Any expansion of Heathrow Airport risks causing “immense social and environmental damage” unless stringent tests for expansion are clearly defined and enforced by the government, a coalition of environmental organisations and aviation campaign groups warn today. 

With the Department for Transport expected to publish a draft Airports National Policy Statement (ANPS) this July, campaigners from Friends of the Earth, the Aviation Environment Federation, No Third Runway Coalition, Safe Landing and Possible argue that the government’s criteria for its frequently cited ‘four tests’ for airport expansion are too vague to be used effectively for scrutinising proposals. 

The government has long claimed that any expansion at Heathrow would have to meet ‘four tests’, which were outlined by the Secretary of State for Transport, Heidi Alexander. These would require any airport expansion proposal: 

1. Delivers economic growth across the country  
2. Complies with air quality obligations  
3. Minimises local noise impacts  
4. Aligns with climate obligations, including net zero targets  

However, the groups argue that these must be translated into clear and measurable standards or be rendered meaningless. 

"The government can’t carry on using these ‘four tests’ as a vague political slogan to suggest that ministers will review plans rigorously, when really the criteria they’re working with lacks substance,” Tony Bosworth, climate campaigner at Friends of the Earth, says.  

“Only by properly scrutinising the full impacts of expansion at airports like Heathrow – which we know will be plenty – can we protect communities and the environment. The alternative route, expansion at any cost, is a recipe for immense social and environmental damage.” 

The forthcoming ANPS will set out the framework against which any future planning application for Heathrow expansion is assessed, as well as other airports. The coalition of groups are calling on the government to adopt rigorous benchmarks across the following four key areas.  

Economic impact 

The groups argue that airport expansion must provide: 

• Clear, net economic benefits that are felt across the UK, which are not concentrated in the South East.  
• Reassurance that the project does not require subsidies, tax discounts or any form of public funding (including improvements to public transport). 

Noise 

When it comes to the government’s test on noise, airport expansion proposals must:  

• Include a comprehensive guide proposed flight paths 
• It will not increase the number of people exposed to harmful noise levels.

Air  
In terms of air quality, expansion plans must: 

• Be assessed against health-based air pollution targets from the World Health Organization.
• Demonstrate there will be no increase in vehicle journeys in the surrounding area as a direct result of the expansion plan. 

Climate  
Environmental groups believe that increasing airport capacity is incompatible with the government’s climate commitments. As such, any proposals must demonstrate they are: 

• Compatible with the UK’s legally binding carbon budgets.  
• Account for cumulative emissions from all permitted and forecasted UK airport expansions in the upcoming Carbon Budget 7.  

The revised ANPS is expected to shape not only the future of Heathrow, but the direction of UK aviation policy for decades to come. The coalition is encouraging MPs to support this call and ensure that the benchmark for airport expansion, especially at Heathrow, is set at the appropriate level.

Without rigorous standards, expansion risks locking the UK into higher emissions, worsening public health and deepening regional inequality, the groups warn.  

Alethea Warrington, Head of Aviation, Heat and Energy at Possible, said: 
“Flying is already on course to become the UK’s most polluting sector - so it’s mindblowing that the government is trying to expand it, particularly given their total failure to provide any evidence that ultra-polluting projects like the third runway will help our economy. The government has to choose: will they prioritise a liveable future for all of us, or more profits for the overseas investors who own Heathrow airport?”

Celeste Hicks, Policy Manager at the Aviation Environment Federation, said: 
"The UK, and London in particular, have made some impressive progress on reducing harmful NO2 pollution in recent years, giving all our lungs a break. But that hard work could be undone by allowing a quarter of a million extra planes a year to deposit NO2 pollution as they fly over West London communities. And that's without considering the additional increase in harmful pollutants from tens of thousands of extra vehicle journeys to the airport."

Paul Beckford, Policy Director at the No 3rd Runway Coalition said:
“Communities have a right to know exactly what expansion would mean for them and that means publishing detailed flight paths and the full range of noise impacts before any decision is made. The Government cannot sign off on this project while keeping people in the dark about who will be hit, how often, and how severely. People living under these flight paths deserve cast-iron guarantees that their quality of life will not be sacrificed. That means no worsening of night noise, real protections for sleep, and a continued system of predictable respite through runway alternation. Anything less is a betrayal of the communities who will bear the brunt of this expansion.”

Notes

1. The coalition of groups set out their policy recommendations for Labour’s four tests in response to a DESNZ consultation. For more detail, please read the full recommendations on the Aviation Environment Federation's website.