A THIRD runway at Heathrow will have a catastrophic impact on the Colne Valley Regional Park.
It will devastate local communities and sever ecological connectivity between the Thames and the Chilterns across the Colne river catchment – an area of 1,000 square kilometres.
In June, the government invited competing proposals for the expansion of the airport, and set a deadline of 31 July.
Successive governments have consistently failed to grasp the sheer enormity of the environmental and societal impact of expanding Heathrow. Unfortunately, this latest premature and ill-conceived statement of support for a third runway is yet another example, and it caught everyone by surprise – including Heathrow Airport itself.
Two proposals were submitted to government on 31st July, one by Heathrow, the other by Arora.
Both are high on spin and low on detail, a wearyingly familiar characteristic of future visions for Heathrow. Both include hugely misleading maps that make no reference at all to the colossal impact of displaced homes and businesses, nor to the significant amount of new development that will be attracted by the lure of serving an expanded Heathrow.
Our summary of the two schemes are set out below. They are solely guided by the six objectives of the Colne valley Regional Park.
Heathrow
A summary of its proposal can be found here: Expanding-Heathrow-proposal-summary-31-07-25.pdf
This includes a runway of up to 3,500m metres in length, two new terminals and new infrastructure: taxiways, cargo handling areas, parking, public transport interchange, southern road tunnel etc
This is pretty much the same as the previous proposals from 2019. The main differences are:
- It claims the runway will be ‘up to’ 3,500m long. On page 21 it states: “We will contemplate whether a shorter 3,100m runway would provide the same operational and noise benefits.”
- Its commitments for mitigation of the proposal and enhancement for the local environment is vaguer than last time. See Delivering for the local environment on page 55 – its only statement relevant to the Colne Valley is: “…commitment to meet all legal environmental obligations and deliver a measurable net gain in biodiversity.” This is worryingly puny and unambitious for an immensely damaging proposal on this scale. In any case, we continue to campaign for more legal protection for the regional park simply because the existing safeguards have proved woefully inadequate on a daily basis.
- Heathrow’s entire document fails to mention the Colne Valley Regional Park. Green Belt or the rivers affected, apart from an information box about Scottish Salmon on page 36. There is no reference to English Eels, Trout or Otters, all of which would be threatened by these plans.
Arora
It has put even less detail into the public domain than the decidedly scant offering from Heathrow
Arora’s press release can be found here: https://www.thearoragroup.com/news/the-arora-group-finalises-landmark-heathrow-airport-expansion-proposal
Arora proposes a new terminal and a runway of 2,800m in length. This avoids damage to one of the Colne Valley rivers and the immense cost of relocating the M25 and a section of it underground.
It also claims: “The Sustainability Strategy harnesses innovative solutions to… protect the Green Belt, restore the river and protect local communities through the creation of blue/green buffers and enhanced cycle- and footpaths.”
Our position
We will continue to engage with the Government and both promoters to make the case that:
- In the context of international concern over climate change, the idea of such a gigantic and devastating project is politically toxic. Its roots remain firmly embedded in the 20th Century. We hope common sense will triumph over ruthless commercial imperatives.
- This colossal scheme is equivalent to bolting an operation the size of Gatwick on to Heathrow – effectively putting the second largest airport in the country right next to the largest. It will cause noise, air, water and light pollution at unprecedented and completely unacceptable levels, as well as sweeping away entire communities. This is no run-of-the-mill infrastructure project: the forced relocation of more than 15,000 people and the impact of noise, pollution and years of disruption affecting several million people across the region, and you have a project of the kind generally only encountered in autocracies like China.
- We are particularly concerned that five rivers are to be diverted. Stretches dating back to the last Ice Age will be put underground for approximately 2km, merged, culverted and netted. The vital and ancient link between the network of precious chalk streams of the Bucks & Herts Chilterns and the Thames will be permanently compromised.
- Let’s not rush this! A project of this scale and cost, with lasting local and national impact, needs independent scrutiny and genuinely ‘joined-up thinking’—not a political rubber-stamp by the end of the Parliament.
