Berkshire MPs give views on Heathrow third runway proposals

The MPs for Windsor and Maidenhead have continued to voice their opposition to a third runway at Heathrow Airport after expansion proposals were submitted – but Slough's MP remains supportive.

The Government received Heathrow Airport’s initial proposals for a 3,500m third runway and other improvements on Thursday (July 31), with the investment expected to cost £49billion.

A rival bid has also been submitted by the Arora Group, featuring a shorter 2,800m third runway.

The submissions come after the Labour Government said it was backing Heathrow’s expansion in January.

The prospect of a third runway has been a subject of fierce debate in the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead for decades, with the council and MPs raising fears about the noise impact of flights over the area, particularly at night, as well as environmental concerns.

Others have said Heathrow’s expansion will provide an economic boost to the region.

Speaking to the Local Democracy Reporting Service, Conservative MP for Windsor, Jack Rankin, said: “I want to be clear, I have long campaigned against the third runway. I continue to oppose a third runway at Heathrow. It is a sticking plaster solution to the long-running issue of airport capacity.

“The cumulative impacts of noise, air pollution and congestion - whilst they each can be mitigated in some way, and I thank Heathrow for its constructive engagement with myself - are ultimately insurmountable challenges to the quality of life of my constituents.”

The new runway is expected to bring in more flights every year, with a 276,000 increase following the expansion.

Other upgrades for the airport include a £12billion investment for a new terminal complex and a £1.5billion investment towards improving the M25 between junction 14 and 15.

But Mr Rankin said this is not ‘a financially straightforward expansion’ with charges for passengers expected to increase over time.

He said: “Whilst I am reassured that the direct expansion will be funded with private capital, and not taxpayers’ money, there will need to be significant public investment for example on Western and Southern access rail access routes.

“These are essential if the airport is to deliver any of the claimed economic benefits and mitigate traffic and pollution. Without clear plans and guarantees, communities’ risk being left with increased road congestion, air pollution, and strain on local infrastructure.”

A Heathrow Airport spokesperson addressed Mr Rankin’s environmental concerns and said the project would improve career opportunities locally.

They said: “We have always been clear, expanding Heathrow will only go ahead in line with strict environmental targets and full detail of our plans would be published and scrutinised at the application stage.

“This privately funded project will unlock tens of thousands of new opportunities for careers locally, while maintaining the country’s global footing and adding 0.43 per cent to UK GDP once complete.”

However, Maidenhead’s Lib Dem MP Joshua Reynolds also agreed that the plans for the airport are ‘eye-wateringly expensive’ with the economic and environmental cases ‘not stacking up’.

He said: “Too many crucial questions remain unanswered, and communities across the South of England deserve reassurance that decisions of this scale are based on solid evidence and are not already decided leaving local communities with no option.

“The Government appears determined to force through the Heathrow expansion, in a relentless pursuit of headline growth.

Slough’s Labour MP Tan Dhesi welcomed the prospect of a third runway when the Government announced its support for the project in January and was pleased with the continued progress towards it.

Mr Dhesi said: “As the largest single-site employer in the UK, supporting over 90,000 jobs, Heathrow’s expansion has the potential to deliver countless economic benefits to Slough, Berkshire and the wider UK economy.

“This progress must go hand in hand with robust investment in sustainable aviation and meaningful engagement with local communities.

“It is essential that residents’ concerns are heard and addressed through effective mitigation measures."