Sir Howard Davies: Heathrow is the only option for the UK to move forward

Decisions on airport capacity are among the most contentious politicians have to make — especially in a congested corner of a crowded island. The benefits of aviation are enjoyed by the many, while the environmental costs are borne by those few who live near airports or under their flight paths. No doubt that was part of the reason why the Prime Minister asked my Airports Commission to make a recommendation first, and attract some of the inevitable opprobrium.

Over the past two-and-a-half years we have analysed, reviewed, consulted, debated, listened, reconsulted and done all those things commissions do. Our conclusion is clear. We favour a third, full-length runway at Heathrow, to the north-west of the existing runways. But it must be accompanied by a new way of working for the airport, with measures to cut noise and pollution and make it a better neighbour to its local communities.

Heathrow will bring the greatest benefit to the many. It works for business passengers, freight operators and the broader economy; good road and rail links, support structures and a skilled workforce are already there. It is a national asset. But can an additional runway be built without imposing too great an environmental impact?

In our view it can, with comprehensive measures to manage the effects of expansion. They include a ban on night flights — the new capacity will allow the airport to rule out flights between 11.30pm and 6am — and an aviation noise charge on passengers to fund more generous compensation and mitigation, including high-quality insulation schemes for schools. Respite can be made more reliable and the Government should impose a “noise envelope”, a cap on the noise the airport can make, with an independent aviation noise authority to police it.

With these and other measures in place, and as improvements in aeroplane technology continue, there will be no more noise than there is today and a better deal for those affected. Air quality will be an important issue, as the recent Supreme Court ruling shows. With effective mitigations, there need be no delay in achieving European limits, and this should be a condition of expansion. Nor would additional capacity mean ignoring climate change. We can have growth at Heathrow and elsewhere without breaching the level of emissions recommended by the Committee on Climate Change.

We also believe the airport can radically improve its relationship with its neighbours. When we talked to local residents, many were supportive of the airport but believed it could do more to be a good citizen. At Amsterdam’s Schiphol airport, we found a forum giving real influence to local communities, a model for close relations with those living nearby. So we recommend a new Community Engagement Board for Heathrow.

The airport has committed £1 billion on community spending, £700 million of that on noise insulation, including in homes, schools and community centres. It is a start but we want it to go further. For those whose homes will be lost, the airport has offered full market value plus 25 per cent, along with reasonable costs. That should be made available as soon as possible. The airport should also provide training and apprenticeships for local people. It already brings great economic benefits to the area. We believe a third runway will create around 70,000 new jobs.

Finally, in proposing a third runway at Heathrow, we want to end any speculation about a fourth. There is no case for a fourth runway. Further expansion should be ruled out in Parliament.

We are not the first to recommend the expansion of Heathrow, for the business logic is clear. The airport handles 70 per cent of the UK’s long-haul flights, more freight by value than all other UK airports combined and more arrivals and departures on two runways than any equivalent airport in the world. But the approach we have proposed, including strong measures to limit its impacts, is fundamentally different. If these steps are taken, supported by legislation, new community engagement and advances in technology, we believe a fair balance can be struck between national and local priorities and previous objections can be overcome.

Gatwick made a plausible case, but with its core strength in European leisure travel it would be unlikely to provide the long-haul capacity we need as efficiently as Heathrow. Nor is its surface transport infrastructure as good. We were impressed by the imagination of the alternative proposal at Heathrow, the Heathrow Hub, but felt difficulties with noise and air quality made it less attractive.