Hillingdon Council has publicly criticized the UK government's four tests for deciding on Heathrow Airport's third runway, arguing they lack meaningful fail criteria and fail to account for local community impacts. The criticism was voiced during a Cabinet meeting on Thursday, September 17, and in evidence given to the parliamentary Transport Committee earlier that week.
Council Slams 'Contrived' Decision Framework
Councillor Steve Tuckwell, speaking at the Cabinet meeting, condemned the government's four tests, which measure economic growth, air quality, noise, and climate change. He stated: "It talks about four tests - economic growth, air quality, noise, and climate change - but there is no meaningful pass or fail criteria, there are no clear red lines, and no obvious point which the answer becomes no. A decision-making framework which cannot realistically say no isn't much of a decision-making framework at all."
The government, under Prime Minister Keir Starmer, said it would assess a third runway proposal against four specific tests: economic growth (requiring a credible and meaningful contribution to UK-wide growth with a clear plan for benefits such as jobs, productivity, and connectivity); carbon/climate (compatibility with legally binding climate targets, including carbon budgets and net zero); air quality (no new breaches of legal limits, with appropriate mitigation); and noise (impacts no worse than 2024 baseline levels, with reductions where possible).
Call for Fifth Test on Community Impact
On Tuesday, September 15, Ian Thynne, Head of Environmental Planning Specialists at Hillingdon Council, told the parliamentary Transport Committee that a fifth test exploring the local community impact should be introduced. He argued: "We have asked for a fifth test around the community...I think the impacts on communities have been lost in this when we start talking about national growth, and the residents have had to put up with a lot over the years. Elevating a community impact test would not just get a proper assessment of the current implications of Heathrow for the local community, but set stronger targets to ensure that we have proper controls so that the community is put front and centre of growth going forward."
Thynne added: "It is about making sure that the local areas are better off with expansion… It is all well and good for growth to go up for various other parts of the country, but the impacts are felt very much at the local level. If the benefits are not going there, it is just communities being left alone really."
Industry and MP Question Feasibility
Responding to the proposal, Anna Sutherland Bamber from the National Infrastructure Planning Association questioned the practicality of adding a fifth test: "The four tests put forward are the four that have obviously faced a lot of scrutiny. I think, if you start putting in a fifth one, the question would be, 'Well, should we have a sixth one? Should we have a seventh one? Should we have an eighth one?' At what point do you draw the line?"
Alex Mayer MP then asked whether it is possible to fail the tests as currently drafted. Sutherland Bamber said she could not respond, but Thynne argued that the tests have been set up to pass, ultimately leading to approval. He said: "What happens here is, because of this fairly contrived designation of critical national growth infrastructure, that basically puts all the small amounts of positivity into a massive great big box that can never be outweighed. It does not matter what is in that box or how weak the economic argument is; that outweighs everything else that we are going to find out. In terms of the air quality test, you can pollute and that is allowed. In terms of noise, you can pollute—again—and that is allowed. In terms of climate change, you might not meet your targets, but that is allowed. That is all because of this contrived policy terminology that sits on one side and cannot be outweighed."
The council's objections highlight a growing rift between local authorities and central government over Heathrow expansion, with residents and officials concerned that national economic benefits will come at the expense of local communities.
