A local campaign group has spoken out against £49bn  plans to build a third runway at Heathrow. 

The airport has recently started work on its planning application for the new runway, after Chancellor Rachel Reeves described the scheme as "critical for Britain's economic growth and competitiveness." 

But Robert Barnstone, Coordinator of the No 3rd Runway Coalition, claims the project will have substantial negative effects both locally and nationally. 

He said: "From local community impacts right up to the national impacts, the evidence is clear - a third runway is not in the best interests of communities or the national economy." 

Barnstone focused on the impact the proposal could have on the climate, with up to 756,000 additional flights set to take place each year if the plans are greenlit. 

He claimed Heathrow is "already the single largest source of carbon emissions in the UK aviation sector", and expansion would add an extra eight to nine megatonnes (Mt) of CO2 per year. 

He also stated an expanded Heathrow would produce 20 Mt per year, close to the entire level the Climate Change Committee has predicted for the entire industry by 2050, and could account for over half of UK aviation emissions for the same year. 

In response to such concerns, according to the campaigner, Heathrow would point to decarbonisation efforts such as their alleged promotion of Sustainable Aviation Fuels (SAFs) and attempts to work towards carbon capture, in addition to the role electric aircraft could have in reducing emissions. 

advertisement

While Barnstone accepts "the case for expansion relies heavily on future technologies", he cautioned that these are fraught with risk. 

On SAFs, he said: "Current production is less than 1% of global jet fuel supply. 

"Historic industry targets have been missed by a wide margin, and even optimistic scenarios suggest SAF will contribute 10–20% of fuel by 2040–2050, (which is) insufficient to offset growth." 

He went on to assert that electric planes would make little difference, as "Heathrow's expansion is primarily driven by long-haul traffic, which will continue to rely on conventional jet fuel", and added carbon capture technologies have questionable effectiveness and are yet to be proven at scale. 

Barnstone was also scathing about the potential repercussions of a third runway on other domestic airports.

He said: "The Department for Transport's own aviation forecasts say there would be 170,000 fewer flights from non-London airports compared to a no expansion scenario. 

"Growth at non-London airports will be 17% less by 2050, and significant Government subsidy will be required to support additional domestic connectivity into Heathrow." 

Despite the challenges Barnstone raises, advocates of the project argue the number of new jobs created will outweigh any negatives in the long run. Barnstone, however, is much more cynical. 

He said: "Fewer people worked at Heathrow in the ten years after Terminal Five opened in 2008, so Heathrow have a poor record at creating good, long-term employment opportunities. Claims that a third runway would create 100,000 new jobs are laughable."