Oral evidence: Scrutiny of the draft Heathrow Expansion National Policy Statement, HC 482
Oral evidence, 14 October 2026.
Witnesses
Thomas Woldbye and Helen Elsby.
Chair
Welcome to our second panel this morning. Please could you both introduce yourselves?
Thomas Woldbye
My name is Thomas Woldbye. I have been the CEO of Heathrow airport for three years.
Helen Elsby
Good morning, everyone. My name is Helen Elsby. I am the chief development officer at Heathrow, and I have been delivering construction projects at Heathrow for over 20 years.
Thomas Woldbye
I should highlight that you are also a member of the executive committee at Heathrow, so part of the leadership.
Chair
Thank you. Why do you think that Heathrow expansion is critical for national growth? Do you feel that that is adequately demonstrated in the Heathrow expansion NPS?
Thomas Woldbye
First, thank you very much for inviting us. It is an honour to be here. We look forward to discussing what we think is an absolutely critical infrastructure project for the UK. We are doing this in the first place because it brings huge private investment into the UK. It provides strong economic growth for society right across the country. It will drive jobs, education, apprenticeships, innovation and trade way beyond what is possible today and what would be possible with a two-runway Heathrow. There are no alternatives to that development. We work with other airports in a very complementary way, but they cannot replace the hub function that Heathrow has. We think the NPS—the national policy statement—goes a very long way to describing that in the right way. We have some areas that we might like to see improvements to, but other than that, we support moving forward with the national policy statement.
Chair
Promoters are required to provide an assessment of the project’s economic impacts across the UK. Is it clear what you will need to provide to satisfy that economic growth test?
Thomas Woldbye
We are already doing that. We have commissioned independent consultants and universities to look at the impact that a third runway would have across the country. We can already say that we are looking at billions of pounds annually in additional GDP—that could be £17 billion. We are looking at 108,000 jobs that will be there in 20 years’ time that would not be there if you did not have a third runway. We are looking at 5,000 apprenticeships. We are looking at additional trade. Currently, Heathrow represents £300 billion of trade annually, which makes us by far the biggest port by value in the country. Without Heathrow expanding, that will pretty much stand still because we do not have additional cargo slots as we speak. If we expand Heathrow, that could grow to, for example, £450 billion, so lots of trade, which is important for everyone in the country. It is Cornish tea, steel from Wales—sorry; that does not get transported by air, but it is important in the project—Scottish salmon and Scottish whisky. All of that will see additional opportunities to trade and connect with the rest of the world.
Chair
On the benefit to the UK more broadly, not just the immediate area of west London, many of those who support runway 3 in evidence to us, and I assume in the evidence to the DFT, justify their support on the basis of connectivity between UK airports and Heathrow. Yet with the inevitable increasing cost per slot, which will be passed to passengers, nobody has yet provided the evidence that those regional flights will be viable in the open market that exists outside the very few tax-funded routes like Belfast. More connectivity between regional airports and Heathrow is part of your case as well. How does that stack up?
Thomas Woldbye
That is a very good question. It is a central part of being a hub. Our prices to the airlines are structured so that long haul is more expensive than short haul, and international short haul is more expensive than domestic. In that way, we incentivise domestic transport. That has not been designated yet, but I am sure that, as we move forward, we will find a way of continuing and growing that. As a hub, we are depending on feed from not only international airports, but local airports. It is in the interest of both the airlines and the airport to have those connections from domestic airports.
Chair
The airlines will effectively end up having to pay whatever the costs are for runway 3. They will have to pay even more for long haul flights under that modelling and there will be slightly less of an increase, but still a big increase, for the regional flights—a sort of cross-subsidy among the airlines. That is among airlines that, like BA, fly both from regional airports and long-haul. A lot of the regional airports depend on smaller local airlines, as you and others have said, and they will be able to get into Heathrow, but does that work in an airline market?
Thomas Woldbye
In my experience, having also worked in Copenhagen, which is a hub airport in exactly the same situation, that worked really well. Again, these are decisions that are to be taken, but no one is saying that there would necessarily be an increase on the domestic part. That is all about the market and how that would work out. What is more critical is that today, that market is suffering from simply not having enough slots at Heathrow, meaning that you can fly to more destinations in the UK from Amsterdam than from Heathrow. We have outsourced our hub. That would be the first thing we would look to insource. For me, there is no difference whether that is served by BA or a dedicated domestic carrier. There should be the same opportunity.
Dr Arthur
A lot of freight by value is gold, which is just going back and forward for reasons I cannot quite fathom. Where is the increase in freight going through the expanded airport coming from? You said there was going to be a significant increase in freight going through the airport. Is that new things that are being manufactured just because the airport exists, or is that freight that is quite happily going by sea now, which is lower carbon, more efficient and so on? Where is that freight coming from? I am sure it is not Cornish tea.
Thomas Woldbye
I would think that comes from the exporters of the commodities that are currently going by air wishing to export more. I would assume that the salmon growers want to export more salmon and that the tea exporters want to export more tea. There is a national industrial strategy that encourages light manufacturing. Lots of light manufacturing products and lots of medical products, which are also part of the national industrial policy, are all supposed to be growing. Their main artery of export is air transport.
Dr Arthur
You have modelled that, then? You talked about assumptions. Has this been modelled in some way?
Thomas Woldbye
That has been modelled in the economic growth assumptions I spoke about earlier. It was not done by ourselves, but by consultants and universities.
Chair
Some of the economic modelling by the DFT showed not net economic growth to the UK from runway 3, but displacement from other regions to west London, which has a much higher GVA per head and so on. Does that slightly weaken the case that a third runway brings net economic growth to the whole of the UK?
Thomas Woldbye
It is important to note that the DFT modelling is based on a certain model that it has to use, so to speak. That model omits a number of elements that are really important to get the full picture of economic impact, one being the fact that this is private investment; it is not taxpayer money. The model does not really account for that. We are already almost £66 billion in adverse when we look at that model, because it is taken as taxpayer money, as a negative in the model. That is not there. It is actually £33 billion private money that otherwise would not be invested in the UK. That is not accounted for in the model. The other thing not accounted for in the model is trade, which is clearly a huge part of the reason for expanding Heathrow in the first place. The last one is the assumption that Heathrow competes with regional airports and will take business away. That is not the case. Heathrow is complementary to regional airports. That is why Birmingham, Edinburgh and Glasgow airports support a third runway, because they are critically dependent on that huge artery of both trade and passenger transport to connect to many markets, as Heathrow is connected to 230 airports around the world. No regional airport will ever be able to get to that point. We work with the regional airports and are complementary to them. Additional capacity at Heathrow will mean additional opportunity for the regional airports.
Chair
Can I pick up one point in your statement that was released in time for today. I think it was in the FT. You said that if runway 3 does not go ahead, the investment of your investors will go elsewhere—I suppose outside the UK. Given that the new Government are looking at growth across the UK, particularly in the north and regions that are more disadvantaged than London, would it not be true that if investment were not able to be put into runway 3, those investors would have the opportunity to invest in significant national infrastructure projects in other parts of the UK?
Thomas Woldbye
That would naturally be an opportunity for them. I have not heard of them having any plans for that.
Chair
There are plenty of plans: Northern Powerhouse Rail, new rolling stock, the lower Thames crossing, Gatwick, Luton and so on. Some airports—I cannot remember which—are looking for investors. Would it not be true that your capital is mobile?
Thomas Woldbye
They could do that. Based on discussions with them, they have no current plans to do that.
Chair
Fine. I am just trying to pin down your statement.
Thomas Woldbye
The statement is quite clear that there is no other project like Heathrow. There is nothing of the size of Heathrow, and there is nothing of the size of Heathrow that has the UK-wide positive consequences. Sixty per cent of the economic benefit of a runway at Heathrow will be felt throughout the entire country. If you compare that with other projects, I do not think that is the case.
Chair
We have heard the view expressed by several people that the affordability of expansion should be made more prominent as a requirement—perhaps as a fifth test—in the HENPS. What is your view on affordability being a condition?
Thomas Woldbye
First of all, we have a close dialogue with our airlines and we entirely agree that a third runway and the expansion of Heathrow—it is important to note that the expansion of Heathrow is not just about a runway; it is about renewing the entire airport and getting an airport that this country deserves. That aside, this should of course be done as economically and efficiently as it possibly can be. We have no interest in spending more money. We get a regulated return on what we spend, so—
Chair
Well, you do, don’t you? It is a pretty safe bet for your investors.
Thomas Woldbye
I think that is a different discussion, but our interest is to be as attractive as we possibly can be to our airlines, and we have very detailed discussions with them. We fully agree with them that affordability is important. Helen, maybe you want to talk to the way that is implemented.
Helen Elsby
Absolutely. To reiterate Thomas’s point, we are in absolute agreement with the airlines on affordability. The business case is great for the country, it is great for airlines, it is great for consumers and passengers, and it is good for Heathrow. If we do not get affordability right, then we all lose, so it is a very important component. We talk to the airlines on a regular basis about the cost of the project, and we are continually working with them to find opportunities to bring down the cost of the project, which is just one factor of the affordability equation. To your point about the place in the HENPS, as I said, we are absolutely aligned on the criticality of affordability within the project, but we must remember that this is a project that spans 20 years of a full rework of our masterplan. Therefore, we actually believe that affordability should be checked at regular touchpoints throughout the life of the project, as is the case today in all the construction projects that we deliver; it is regularly checked through the project life cycle to ensure that the project is delivering value for money and benefit. We are concerned that looking at an affordability test within a policy that drives a planning statement—a one-time test through the planning process—would compromise the role of the CAA in checking affordability and cost throughout the life cycle of the project, on an ongoing basis. From our perspective, it should be looked at continually, throughout the process, via the routes that we have with the CAA, supplemented with independent assurance all the way through.
Dr Arthur
From the public’s perspective, this is an incredibly important issue. The really easy way to demonstrate this to the public is by saying that none of the airlines support your proposals because of the affordability question. You say that you agree with the airlines on affordability. Do they agree with you on what affordability actually means? You have heard what they have said.
Helen Elsby
As I have said, we are in alignment on the need for the whole scheme to be affordable so that everybody gets the benefits they need, and we have jointly written to say that. We are in alignment on that point. What we are doing on an ongoing basis is working on the cost of the project, which, as I have said, is just one lever of affordability, to make sure that we are aligned on that.
Dr Arthur
Is there any other airport in the world where it has been approved despite all the airlines opposing it? Why would the Government approve what you are proposing if none of the airlines support it?
Thomas Woldbye
In many places in the world—Amsterdam, for example, but also Munich—airport expansion is approved by the state unilaterally.
Dr Arthur
But do the airlines unanimously say it is not affordable?
Chair
Are they private sector projects in which the users—the airlines, and therefore the passengers and the freight handlers—have to pay the costs?
Thomas Woldbye
The regulatory model in those places is very akin to the one that we have here, so the answer to that is fundamentally yes, with variations around that point. Some airports are privatised; some airports are state-owned. The regulatory process, like in Amsterdam, like in Munich, is fundamentally the same.
Chair
Okay. I think the cost of your capex just for runway 3 is £33 billion to £35 billion at current costs. Does that include noise mitigation at similar levels to Gatwick’s DCO? Does it include the passenger and staff element of surface access by rail, which we discussed in the previous session? Does it include the carbon costs that the airlines will have to pay, plus the cost of SAF and so on, which we discussed in our session yesterday with the Climate Change Committee? That will surely bring up the per passenger level, whether or not you agree with the airlines saying, I think, £65 per head last time. Whether or not you agree that that is a reasonable calculation per passenger for the capex, you have those other costs as well. With all those added on, what reassurance can you provide at this stage that your project is deliverable, without even further increases in service charges, which would undermine the whole rationale for demand at Heathrow?
Thomas Woldbye
First, it is important to note that passengers do not pay a carbon charge or an airport charge.
Chair
No, the airlines do, and then they have to recoup that somehow.
Thomas Woldbye
They pay a ticket price, and ticket prices are not necessarily related to airport charges. I can give you an example. Over the past 10 years, the airport charge at Heathrow has come down 14% in real terms, whereas the ticket prices have gone up by 30%. There is no scientifically proven link between the two; there have been various studies on that. The amount of money we are talking about, compared with the ticket price at Heathrow, is relatively small in either of the cases you bring up. I have heard the £65 number, but I do not know where it comes from; it is not part of any calculation I have seen that we do. We have said that, as the calculation looks now—and we are trying to reduce that—it is an additional £15 per passenger.
Chair
That is for the capital expenditure.
Thomas Woldbye
Yes.
Chair
What about those other elements I mentioned?
Helen Elsby
To pick up on that, the £33 billion is the privately financed cost that we attribute, as you say, to the expansion elements of the airport, not the rejuvenation of the current airport. You asked about mitigation costs. That includes all the mitigation costs that we believe are necessary to comply with the policy statement as set out at the moment. You referenced Gatwick. Heathrow operates in a different environment from Gatwick, so the noise policy would be appropriate for Heathrow. For example, we do not operate through the night, whereas Gatwick does. We address noise mitigations in different ways. We have set our budgets to be in line with the noise policy appropriate for Heathrow. You talked about surface access. All the surface access elements that we need in order to expand the airport are also included in that cost.
Chair
Obviously, there is the box, or boxes, within the perimeter. What about the infrastructure cost of the rail links beyond the perimeter?
Helen Elsby
I will come to that. I would just remind people that surface access covers a wide range of things.
Chair
The major one being rail.
Helen Elsby
Cycle routes, walking routes, road improvements, new bus interchanges and the like. On rail specifically, we have a sum of money. What the CAA policy directs us to do, and is included in our plans, is to look at funding the cost that is proportionate to the benefits that any rail scheme would deliver to Heathrow passengers. We would ask our airlines and passengers to pay for only those elements that they gain benefit from. Obviously, a rail scheme of that size would deliver much wider benefits to the country, beyond what would be delivered at Heathrow, so those are the elements that are not there.
Chair
Have you put figures to those elements? No. It would be useful to see them.
Thomas Woldbye
To put the numbers in perspective, airport users at Heathrow already pay £30 of airport passenger duty. We are talking about £15 for a new runway. That amount, compared with what is already being paid in APD, which was supposed to offset some of the climate impacts, is much smaller.
Chair
All right. You are in a new situation from 2018. Competition has been introduced, with a second promoter being brought into the mix. What are the pros and cons of doing that in expanding Heathrow’s infrastructure? Do you think it has the potential to increase efficiency and control the costs?
Thomas Woldbye
I think Heathrow’s competition is in Amsterdam, Munich, Frankfurt and, not least, Istanbul, which is expanding very fast. That is where our competition is as a country, and that is where our focus should be. The model for every airport that I know in the world is to have one operator, which ensures safety, security and the wellbeing of passengers, as well as a good passenger experience and airline efficiency. It is run as an ecosystem, but with one entity running it, and I think that is how we should move forward.
Chair
You have argued that the role of the CAA, as an economic regulator, should be kept separate from the planning process requirements. What are your views on the CAA’s role in ensuring the affordability of expansion and on what appears to be its very tight hold on what you can and cannot spend money on, even now? What is your preferred future regulatory model?
Thomas Woldbye
Fundamentally, our project is based on a regulatory model that is the same as the one we have today. You have what is called a regulatory asset base, which you put your investments on and get a return on. It is important to note that we have a system today whereby every single pound that we spend on investments is pre-approved in the regulatory process by the CAA. Each individual project, as it comes along, is approved at both gate 1 and gate 3, out of 10 gates, by the airlines. It is literally every single pound. We cannot spend £1 without it being approved by the airlines. Do we think that, going forward, there should be very clear transparency and cost control, including on the third runway? Absolutely, and to that end we have suggested that we set up a joint assurance board, which would include independent experts, airlines and us, to make sure the project is delivered as efficiently as possible. We are fully open to that. If you look at it, that is what is already happening today. We can’t invest anything. Personally, I would like to see an efficiency improvement of that process, because it is not necessarily efficient, but that is a different discussion. It is not really a third runway discussion; it is a discussion about how we make sure investments into the airport are as efficient as they can possibly be, both for the airlines and for us.
Chair
As you may know, I have experience of the restrictions in your spend over the current noise insulation scheme, which does not even comply with the actual requirements under previous permissions.
Thomas Woldbye
We would agree on that.
Chair
I cannot believe that there is no flexibility at all, but that is for another day. You have argued that the draft NPS should clarify that mitigation measures should be proportionate and deliverable and should maintain the overall viability and affordability of the scheme. How should that be assessed? Is there a risk that measures to protect the community and the environment could be set aside as a result?
Helen Elsby
I do not believe that to be the case. The HENPS, as set out today, has very clear criteria in the tests. We welcome that, so that as we are preparing our planning application, we are very clear on what the tests are and can demonstrate our mitigations and proposals to satisfy all those tests, enabling a route through to the scheme being consented and us going on to deliver the benefits. As you rightly say, we talk about ensuring that they are proportionate and deliverable. That enables us to ensure that we are able to satisfy those tests through the examination process, and that there is the balance between the benefits that a scheme of this size will enable throughout the whole country and the mitigation that we will need to put in place. There are some difficult elements of this for the local community, and we want to make sure we are providing the right mitigation measures for them. We think the HENPS does that today. We would just ask for more clarity through all of those tests to make sure we are submitting the right evidence through the examination process.
Thomas Woldbye
It is important that we talk about the local community. As you know, we work a lot with the local community. There are two aspects of that. When I meet with people in the local community, what they speak about most is the 20 years of uncertainty on this and the need for them to move on. We are now talking about mental health support because people have been in uncertainty for so long. I think we owe it to the people around the airport to take a decision, so that we can say, “We are doing this, and these are the conditions on which you can move on with your life.” That has been an underemphasised aspect of the whole project. It has been really, really hard for the people in the community, and I can understand them. The other point I want to make is that one of the reasons for us proposing this scheme was that the Airports Commission found that the north-west scheme—the runway that we wish to build—is the one that, in the round, compromises on or at least satisfies best both the needs of the airport and the needs of the local community. The minimisation of noise over London, the least houses having to be taken down, and so on—the whole scheme had all of those parameters, and that is why the scheme is there. It is not just because it is a good runway for the airport; it is because it at the same time minimises the impact on the local environment.
Chair
Helen, you said that you want more clarity on conditions and so on. Could you give us a couple of examples of where you would like to see more clarity in the NPS?
Helen Elsby
For example, if we talk about some of the noise conditions, we need to be very clear about what we mean. We are proposing a night-flight ban. We would like those to be aligned to—
Chair
Sorry, but would that apply to the whole airport or just runway three?
Helen Elsby
We would look at making sure that all local communities have a period of time when they get predictable respite. We would alternate that across all three runways to ensure that every part of the community has predictable respite.
Chair
That is 11 pm to 7 am.
Helen Elsby
This is where we would like clarity, to ensure that the proposals we have in place are deliverable at the airport, protect the economic benefit of the flights around that period and are also aligned with the International Civil Aviation Organisation standard definitions of scheduled departure times. Sorry for the detail there, but the clearer we are on what those requirements are, the more we can ensure we are compliant with them.
Dr Arthur
You introduced that as a night-time ban, but as you went into the detail, it did not sound like a night-time ban; it sounded like a night-time ban some of the time.
Chair
I think it is a ban on specific runways. On one or two of the runways there will be no arrivals before 7 am, and the existing arrivals will alternate, which is sort of what happens at the moment.
Helen Elsby
It is about the way you alternate the runways effectively to ensure that every community has a fixed length of time when they have respite from the noise. That would be—
Dr Arthur
That is not every night of the week for individuals though, or is it?
Helen Elsby
It would be overnight all the time, but the start and end times might be slightly staggered depending on the flight schedules we have available.
Chair
At the moment there are 16 flights from 4.15 am to 6 am. It is a free-for-all from 6 am till 7 am, although you try to alternate that, and then you have the daytime alternation from 7 am until 3 pm and 3 pm till 11 pm. Sorry, it is technical stuff.
Helen Elsby
Thank you.
Chair
All part of the day job.
Thomas Woldbye
You know more about this than I do!
Chair
I’m afraid so.
Alex Mayer
Last month, it was reported that you had told the Prime Minister that the original 2035 target operating date for the new runway is unfeasible and that you now expect it to be 2039. What has changed?
Helen Elsby
There are two factors that have been driving this. If we revert back to when we put in our submission to the process last year, we always outlined a range of scenarios by which the runway and the associated infrastructure would be delivered, 2035 being one of them and 2039 being another. We always indicated that range, and at that point in time we always said that 2035 was a great ambition to have, and one that we would really like to achieve. I want to leave the Committee in no doubt that we want to deliver a runway and all its associated infrastructure as soon as we possibly can, so that was an ambition that we wanted to achieve. Probably two things have materialised over the course of the last couple of years. One is that throughout that process we always outlined that there were things that needed to be achieved in order to achieve that earliest runway date. Some of those are around planning permission reform. Some are around ensuring that we have a regulated model that allows our investors to commit significant investment, alongside a few other things. We absolutely recognise that the Government have worked at lightning speed on a number of things on this programme to accelerate its delivery, but as so often in projects, not all opportunities that you identify come to fruition, and therefore some of those things have not been able to be achieved, and that has affected the end date. The second fact is that we have, as we have already discussed, been talking to the airline community—our customers—around the affordability of the scheme. In order to deliver that date you would have to commit to significant sums of money before you actually get consent, because we would need to start purchasing a lot of the land before we have consent for the scheme. In discussing that with them, that is a concern to them. It is also something we have been talking to the CAA about. We believe we would be better investing that money after the consent, when we know we have permission to deliver the project, which means some of those activities have moved pre-DCO consent to post-DCO consent, and that has affected the end date as well. That has improved the affordability of the scheme, I should add, because it smooths out the cost. But I want to leave the Committee in no doubt that we absolutely want to deliver as soon as possible. We will always continue to look for all opportunities to bring the date back in if we can.
Alex Mayer
So you are saying this is not slippage; it is something you pre-planned for.
Helen Elsby
I would say that we always worked off a range of scenarios, because at this stage in a project of this size there are a huge number of unknowns, and we would always be looking at a range of dates. This is where our current assumptions lie.
Alex Mayer
Assuming it is not happening at the beginning of that range, do you now have a new range that extends further into the future?
Helen Elsby
As I said, at the moment our plans are for 2039. That is the date on which we have done all our assessments and all our modelling to submit our DCO application. It is really important that throughout that examination process we can demonstrate the deliverability of the scheme and demonstrate how we plan to achieve that. All our mitigations that we are proposing are based on that date, plus all the other dates for the rest of the delivery of the infrastructure. That is the timeframe we are working to at the moment.
Thomas Woldbye
For 2039 we have a robust plan. Given the current planning circumstances, JR and everything else included, that would bring us to 2039.
Alex Mayer
I just find it a little odd that you have not extended to 2042 or something to give you a bit more leeway.
Helen Elsby
Just to be clear, with all projects you would have a range of dates and a range of costs that sit around it. What I am trying to articulate is that for the DCO process to be robust we have to formulate our plans around one deliverable schedule. We would of course have scenarios should we be able to come earlier or later, but that is our core case that we are now working to.
Alex Mayer
Has the change of date, if we assume it is a change, affected the timetable for terminal upgrades and reaching full capacity, which was previously for 2054?
Helen Elsby
On the masterplan phasing, as it comes through, to some extent yes it has, because terminal 5X, which is the first new terminal to be built after the runway, would also move by the same amount of time as in the original plan, simply because, as I mentioned, you would need to buy all the land to deliver both the runway and the terminal. If we are not doing that now, both dates would move out. The later phases—
Alex Mayer
Is that by the same amount of time? It is four years, basically.
Helen Elsby
Yes, but as I said, as we work through the next phases of the scheme and get into the detailed design, we might be able to pull some of those dates forward.
Thomas Woldbye
But there will be better alignment between when the runway is ready and when the terminals are ready.
Helen Elsby
That is sort of built into the plan—how those capacity elements will be delivered. As I have said, as we go through the examination process, we have to take time slices of when those increases in capacity would come and be able to demonstrate our mitigations accordingly. Those would all flow through over the next 20 years or so.
Alex Mayer
Has there been any concern from potential investors that you are now at the later end of your original group of dates?
Thomas Woldbye
Not in a sense; what is driving investors is not necessarily a particular date. We are prepared to deliver a third runway. The ambitious date was set by the previous Government; we had a credible path to deliver that but, as Helen said, there were consequences to it. I think the ’39 deadline is more robust given the conditions we are working under, and investors are prepared for that. What investors are looking for—before we get to a DCO, in fact—is what the regulation is around this and the actual business case that we can present to investors. Currently, we are lacking that because we do not know the outcome of the HENPS. That is fine; it is the process we are in. But we also do not know the outcome of the CAA deliberations on the long-term regulatory model, and that is probably more important. That is what we are waiting for.
Alex Mayer
Do you think investors have probably already built into their thinking the idea that, “There’ll be some slippage in this because everything to do with Heathrow takes forever”?
Chair
We have had several sessions on HS2.
Thomas Woldbye
That is not how they look at it, and I would say that this is not HS2. We plan in a different way; we have delivered terminals and other things on time and on budget.
Chair
Helen, could you explain something? You have been working for some years on the H8 funding to do the remodelling and upgrade on the existing airport. My understanding is that whether runway 3 gets approval impacts on your plans for the central terminal area and the timing of that work. If runway 3 goes ahead, you need to build the terminal to the west of terminal 5 first, whereas if you were not going to do the third runway because it did not get approval or it did not stack up for you, you would want to go back to what you have been working on in H8 and building a brand new terminal covering the CTA.
Helen Elsby
Kind of, is my answer. Let me explain. First, the first phase of the capacity uplift is to upgrade terminal 5, which is what we are hoping to do in H8 in our next regulated period. Aside from a third runway—or not—that is the next uplift and refurbishment that we plan to do. Our phasing plan, as you rightly say, delivers an integrated airport in phases over time. That means that the first terminal that would come online is T5X, which is west of the current T5. But we plan to start working on the eastern side and the new terminal development in the eastern side at the same time. It is not that we start work first but that we progress both at the same time; the eastern development is just more complicated to deliver so it takes longer. We have a plan that enables us to move forward with that, whether or not we have approval for a third runway. But you rightly point out that some of the latter phases of that masterplan would get changed, because at the moment, the first terminal to come online is T5X, then it would go to the CTA works, and then we would go back to the expansion and do T5X north as the final phase. That integrated plan needs to be delivered as one integrated plan, because it allows us to match the capacity releases to the passenger demand that we see. But we have safeguarded to ensure that we can continue modernising the airport even if 3R does not go ahead.
Chair
Thank you. I realise that I am moving off the NPS.
Steff Aquarone
Things take longer and quite often cost more than expected, even in well-run projects. Would you welcome clearer milestones, and perhaps even independent oversight, in the HENPS, to prepare for your case? You are obviously assuming—as you have described, Helen—what the programme plan looks like.
Thomas Woldbye
To start with the latter, independent oversight, as I said earlier, is already there; the airlines do that. We have proactively suggested setting up a joint assurance board for the third runway. We feel that might be a more efficient process than the one we have today, because you would get more independent scrutiny than just airports and airlines. The reason why I say that is because, of course, in that process airlines and airports might have different motivations, whereas if you have some independent views in there, you might get a better view. We have already suggested putting in place a joint assurance board to do just that. So to your latter question, yes. Clear milestones will be in the DCO, right, Helen?
Helen Elsby
Absolutely. As I said, we would need to look at those milestones in order to demonstrate the mitigations we would have. Our schedules today all have clear milestones in them. The schedule that is underpinning this has already been independently assured, as has our cost plan. Looking at our current delivery, we delivered terminal 5 on time and on budget and we delivered terminal 2 on budget. Over the past 10 years, I have delivered more than 1,000 projects at Heathrow. We have the experience to know how these things need to happen and, as Thomas said, our schedules provide all that information to anybody who wants to assure it.
Steff Aquarone
But the complexity of dealing with the M25, two immigration removal centres and a waste recycling facility places some of the risk outside your direct control. What are the biggest delivery risks as you see it at the moment?
Thomas Woldbye
The risks and the ability to deliver are pretty well described and we will know what to do. Despite the size of the project, no new technology is needed. Moving a highway has been done before; Germany does it all the time and in the Netherlands, Amsterdam Schiphol has several motorways running over its taxiways. It is not new technology. It is complicated and needs to be planned well, but it can be done. We should remember that out of the £33 billion, about two thirds of that—comparing complexity with the size of the pie of the money—is acquiring the land, which needs no new technology and is not complicated. It takes time and has a process, but that is well described. Another third of that is actually for preparing the land, which again is not complicated. It takes time, as well described, but we know how to do it. We are then left with the remaining third, which is the part that you are talking about: building and installing the runway. We know how to do all that. We are left with a few other things, but in the scale of things, they are not major.
Helen Elsby
If you look at the terminal 5 project, which we delivered on time and on budget, significant M25 works were needed for that as well. We had to move rivers and change the boundary of the airport and everything that comes with that. We have experience of doing all those things as well. Yes, it is complicated and yes, it is a big scheme, but we have the right capability and expertise to do it, and I would say this is a wonderful opportunity for UK engineering to solve all these problems.
Steff Aquarone
Excellent—hear, hear! Thomas, on that third third and the potential associated costs of those works, are there any things that are not included in that £27 billion, or the third third of that £27 billion? What is your view on the Government's interest, or the tender that has been put out by the DFT, to assess potential Government exposure to any of those overruns?
Helen Elsby
As I have said before, the cost plan we have accounts for all the activity that we believe we need to ensure that the expansion can be successful. It has been independently assured as well, and it has been reviewed thoroughly over the past years. As with all major projects, we would of course have a risk register covering risk, which also has allowance in the cost plan. We are following all industry standard practices. The estimates that were put into that have all followed industry standard processes to get them there, so we believe it is a robust estimate.
Thomas Woldbye
Of course, we base ourselves on experience. We have delivered—what?—900 projects in the past 10 years, and they have all been reviewed. We look at the risk necessary to go in. Some people have said, “Why is it £33 billion? It’s a big amount.” That is exactly why: we have those risk contingencies in there and we have all this built in to make sure that we believe we have a robust number that we can deliver to.
Steff Aquarone
So the Government, or the DFT, could save money by not commissioning that potential independent assessment of the risk to them.
Helen Elsby
That is a choice for the DFT. We welcome independent assurance, and if they want to work with us—we will be working in partnership with DFT on this project, hopefully for some time. We will work with them to look at that and support them in that activity.
Steff Aquarone
But you have already commissioned your own assurance, you have said already.
Helen Elsby
This is part of our standard project process anyway.
Chair
Let me be specific. Public sector projects. Two immigration removal centres. The Lakeside energy from waste station is private, but it uses public sector contracts. In Hillingdon, you have schools and other community facilities owned or used by the local authority. You may have some council housing. I assume you have factored in costs of compensating those who still own property, but does that include providing new housing that is going to be developed? Which of those are included and which are not?
Helen Elsby
All of those are included.
Chair
All of those are included, okay.
Helen Elsby
And we are not developing these proposals in isolation. We have been talking to National Highways already about the M25. We did quite a lot of work with them. We are talking to the communities about all those schools. We have been talking to the Government about the IRCs.
Chair
So there is no Government exposure to any costs and risks. You are covering them all.
Helen Elsby
As I said, this is the cost plan that we have built up. All the known scope that we have today, including all those things you mentioned, has been fed into our cost plan.
Chair
Okay. I am conscious of the time. Scott will ask about realising the benefits.
Dr Arthur
Helen, I am really impressed with your grasp of the detail on this, I have to say, but you invoke terminal 5, which is 20 years old now, isn’t it? Do you think that is still relevant as a project delivered on time and on budget? I can remember when it opened; it did not go exactly smoothly did it?
Helen Elsby
Terminal 5 is very close to my heart, because I was a project manager on it, and it was a world-leading terminal development that was delivered. It is 20 years old now, and we have learned a lot along the way. Part of our core is making sure that we learn lessons. I would say that terminal 2 built on all the lessons of terminal 5 and opened very successfully.
Dr Arthur
And you were involved with that as well, no doubt. On the benefits, we spoke earlier about freight, resilience and connectivity. Is there any challenge in delivering those benefits? What are you concerned about when it comes to delivering them?
Helen Elsby
I will start and maybe Thomas can pick this up. The thing you have to remember about the benefits is that it is not only about the quantity and how they are delivered; it is also about the timescales in which they are delivered. The biggest risk at the moment is probably whether there is any delay to those being delivered through the process, which we want to try to remove as much as possible, hence our request that the HENPS is as clear in its requirements as it can be. We have the evidence that shows that the demand for Heathrow is out there. Coming back to your earlier point around freight, during covid, when obviously we were not able to fly as much passenger traffic, our cargo demand went up significantly, because we were able to accommodate more cargo. Since the passenger demand has come back and we have reached capacity, we are struggling to meet the cargo demand that is being asked of us. Similarly, I know Thomas has—
Dr Arthur
But isn’t it the case that under your plans there will be no extra cargo flights leaving; it is still all belly hold?
Helen Elsby
But that in itself creates more cargo capacity.
Dr Arthur
I accept that.
Thomas Woldbye
When I think about the risks—this is why I hesitated for a second—I am not concerned that this project will not deliver the benefits that I outlined and that others have described. My concern is about the delay and others getting involved in it—look at HS2 and other things. We would like to deliver this based on a straight line—a clear project plan that is supported by all the stakeholders and delivered on time. I think the big risk is actually delay. I am not too concerned about the trade benefits, the tourism benefits or the economic benefits. The £33 billion in investment—I am quite clear—will go 95% into UK supply chains. That benefit will be there; the 100,000 jobs will be there. But we should make sure that we do not get off track.
Dr Arthur
On connectivity, I think you have said that there will be five additional restored or new routes.
Chair
Domestic routes.
Dr Arthur
Domestic routes, yes. That does not seem revolutionary to me, but I do not know what a big number would be, to be honest. Coming back to affordability, it seems from listening to the airlines that, while you might want to revive those routes, if they are not affordable, they are not going to run them. Is that on your risk profile—that you are just too expensive for these new routes to operate? If it is a key benefit—
Thomas Woldbye
Absolutely; that is of course on our risk register. To put it into perspective, as I said, airport charges have gone down by 19% in the past 10 years; ticket prices have gone up by 30—
Dr Arthur
How does that compare with other airports?
Chair
Sorry, but I am conscious of time. So yes, it is a risk—
Thomas Woldbye
I see it as a very—
Chair
Sorry—it is on your risk register.
Thomas Woldbye
It is on our risk register, but when we look at the fact that we have 40 airlines that want a slot at Heathrow and cannot get it, and are prepared to pay up to £50 million just for a daily slot, I don’t see—
Dr Arthur
Your charges are going to go up; that is the challenge.
Thomas Woldbye
I don’t see a £15 increase on the individual passenger as a real risk.
Daniel Francis
Does your £27 billion figure for “terminals and upgraded infrastructure” include funding for surface access schemes? How much are you banking on spending on surface access?
Helen Elsby
As I mentioned earlier, we have a comprehensive surface access package. The HENPS will ask us to ensure that we have appropriate surface access to meet the mode share targets explicitly stated in there, so we will need to have that surface access package in place to demonstrate how we will meet all those commitments. Surface access covers a multitude of things. As I said, we have an upgrade to the passenger interchange, which is the central bus station in the CTA, along with a new passenger interchange on the western side of Heathrow, in terminal 5. It also includes upgrades to a lot of roads. We talk about the M25; in moving it, we plan to increase the capacity and make it safer at the same time, which is a benefit to the public. We will also be including lots of green infrastructure around cycle routes and walking routes. Obviously, we have the Elizabeth line and the underground line coming into Heathrow, which will also provide more mechanisms for people to use public transport, which is obviously one of our ambitions for the scheme.
Daniel Francis
How do you anticipate meeting the rail costs, and are you including the southern and western links in that?
Helen Elsby
As I said, all the infrastructure that we need in order to make expansion successful is provided within our cost plan that we have access for, including some elements of the rail infrastructure to enable that rail to be received at Heathrow. We have talked about the fact that the CAA policy states that we fund the amount appropriate to the benefits we receive at the airport, and that is the assumption that we have made in our cost plan.
Daniel Francis
Is a conversation going on with the DFT about them picking up some costs as well?
Helen Elsby
There are various alternatives that you can have for rail schemes. Notwithstanding, obviously, the current conversation about Great British Railways, this could be a very attractive project to another promoter. We would obviously work hand in hand with them to make sure that it was successful as an integrated scheme.
Daniel Francis
I don’t quite understand. You will remember, Chair, as a London MP, that the Elizabeth line ended up being a cost partially on the London council tax payer, through CIL and so on. Are you having conversations about how that may end up working? You will take some of the cost, but where will the rest of the cost be picked up?
Helen Elsby
We have been discussing rail with potential other promoters and we have been having conversations with the DFT about what that could look like. We have ideas about that. As the promoter of our scheme, we will need to demonstrate how we can meet the mode share targets stated in the HENPS, and we will need to show that we have the infrastructure available to deliver that, but we are very happy to work in partnership with others to explore what a wider rail scheme could look like and we have been doing so for some time.
Thomas Woldbye
I met Andy Lord the other day, and there will be quite substantial capacity increases, on both the Elizabeth line and the Piccadilly line, before we get to a third runway.
Daniel Francis
How do you envisage that the DCO will enforce those modal share shifts?
Helen Elsby
The HENPS will give clarity on the targets that we need to meet. We will need to demonstrate, in our application process, how we plan to do that. Those will be examined in the course of that process. Effectively, when that consent is granted, that becomes law, so that will then give the legal boundaries by which we can deliver this scheme.
Daniel Francis
The 2018 ANPS said: “Heathrow Airport has committed to ensuring its landside airport-related traffic is no greater than today.” Have you shelved that commitment?
Helen Elsby
As we have said, we would look to the policy statement to ensure that we are meeting those mode share commitments. A lot has moved on since that policy was written. There were certain rail infrastructures that were also due to be delivered that now are not. We are effectively saying, “Let’s make sure we understand the outcome we are trying to achieve,” which is the proportion of passengers and colleagues we want to be using public transport, “and hold us to account over that.” We will have to ensure that the plans we have in place can meet those outcomes, as stated in the HENPS, or the policy statement.
Chair
So that is a yes; that commitment has been shelved.
Helen Elsby
The policy statement is there to replace that with an outcome-based metric that we would need to adhere to.
Alex Mayer
Have you modelled whether improved surface access might reduce the demand for regional flights?
Helen Elsby
I’m sorry, I didn’t quite catch that.
Alex Mayer
Have you modelled whether improved surface access might reduce the demand for domestic flights?
Thomas Woldbye
Do you mean regional transport?
Alex Mayer
Yes. Passengers might go by train rather than plane because surface access has been improved, so there might be less demand for planes from Bristol to Heathrow, for example.
Chair
Or HS2 to Birmingham airport.
Thomas Woldbye
We obviously model the demand, and that demand is put together by various modes of transport. Eventually, whether people from Birmingham come via a flight or via train does not change the demand for the hub function at Heathrow. You can say that it changes how people get to Heathrow, but it does not change the demand for capacity out of Heathrow.
Chair
When the west coast main line was electrified and trains were faster, direct flights from Heathrow to Manchester halved. It was a similar situation for London to Paris with Eurostar. Is that not a risk factor, in terms of demand for domestic connectivity, that you need to factor in?
Thomas Woldbye
I would not describe it as a risk. It might be people coming to Heathrow in a different way, but they are still coming, so it does not change the demand out of Heathrow. It may change the demand for domestic slots—
Alex Mayer
Exactly, which you can then use for something else.
Thomas Woldbye
Yes, they will be used for something else. The demand from Heathrow will not change; the demand for a third runway will not change, because the amount of passengers will be the same.
Alex Mayer
In your written evidence, you said that you would welcome greater clarity around the assessment methodology and requirements for compliance with the climate test. What changes would you like to see?
Helen Elsby
Carbon, and the tests that go into that, is a very complicated subject. I come back to the point that all we are trying to do is make sure that the tests we would have to ensure we are mitigating against are very clear to us, so that when we put our submission in and go through the examination process, we can ensure that it is robust. That is just about the way it is measured today, making sure that we understand what those targets are and over what timeframe, and making sure that the controls we have available to us are within Heathrow’s control and that we can demonstrate our compliance with those tests.
Alex Mayer
Are you looking for a much clearer pass/fail test?
Helen Elsby
We should all ensure that the policy statement provides the right balance between the benefits being delivered and making sure we are mitigating against any adverse impacts of expansion. That all needs to be taken in the round. The four tests together look across all the elements: air quality, noise and carbon. We want to make sure that all the boundaries of those are clearly articulated to us, so we can mitigate across all of them. The clearer those tests can be with us, the better. It may not be as simple as pass/fail, because this, as I said, is a masterplan over a whole period of time, and so the mitigations we will have to put in will be put in place over a period of time and will change over that period.
Alex Mayer
The Climate Change Committee has criticised the climate test, on the basis that it assesses emissions only up to 2050, while the expansion will not be completed until after 2050. Have you assessed the emissions impact on your scheme after 2050?
Helen Elsby
First, we absolutely understand the climate challenge. We are absolutely aligned to driving forward all solutions to mitigate the carbon impacts. That applies not just to expansion but to all our business today, in terms of what we do. We have factors in place to help support this objective, like our incentivisation model to uplift sustainable aviation fuel. Our targets are aligned to be net zero by 2050. We have modelled all the carbon implications for the life of the project, and we have a credible way through to deliver that, although we will need policies in place to enable us to do so. We agree with the committee’s response on that: current policies alone will not be enough to get us there, so we want to work with Government, as a partner, as well as with other third parties, to ensure that all the right pieces are in place to enable that plan to be achieved.
Alex Mayer
Was that a yes—you have assessed the emissions impact?
Helen Elsby
We have.
Alex Mayer
What does it show?
Helen Elsby
As I said, the proposal that we would need to submit in our DCO will have to model the impact over the life of the plan that we are submitting, showing a credible path to our remaining within the carbon tests in the policy statement. That draws on a multitude of levers to get us there. We have that credible plan. We will have to demonstrate that through the examination process—otherwise we will not be given the consent.
Alex Mayer
What assumptions about technology development are most critical to your conclusion that expansion is compatible with carbon budgets? Where do you think the biggest risks lie?
Thomas Woldbye
In our planning, we need to live up to the thresholds set by the NPS. As Helen said, we have a credible plan to do that. How that will happen over time will change. As you know, there is a whole funnel of ways to mitigate carbon dioxide emissions from aviation, consisting of sustainable aviation fuel, new aircraft, better airspace management, and carbon capture and storage. All those factors will come with different percentages. I am convinced that that will change over the next 10 to 20 years—we will know new things. If you look at the curve, aviation is ahead when it comes to new aircraft. Covid had a very strong effect on that, for example. We are ahead of the curve on that. We are below the curve on sustainable aviation fuel, but Heathrow is the airport with the highest uptake of sustainable aviation fuel in the world, both in absolute terms and in percentage terms, so we are on our way, if you like. Those things will change over time, but we will have a clear limit set in the NPS—that is what the NPS is for.
Alex Mayer
Earlier, you were telling us how it was proven technology to move motorways, rivers and things like that. This is the complete opposite, isn’t it? We are talking about very unproven technology, certainly at the scale that will be required. Is that not a bigger risk than you are saying?
Thomas Woldbye
Without being a technology expert, I would say there is absolutely a difference. Moving a motorway is proven technology; many people have done it. SAF is a proven technology; we load up to 5% or 6% of it every day, so it works. We need much more of it, and we need Government policies to support it, with mandates put in place and so on. I think it is all proven technology, but we need more of it.
Chair
Okay. Can I shift to decarbonisation of the airport? As I said to the previous witnesses, at the moment Heathrow is probably less dependent on electric power on the apron—for tugs, mechanisms and so on—than many of our other airports, partly because you have grid capacity issues. That is what we were told when we visited. Is there a grid power challenge for the existing airport to further decarbonise and improve air quality? Is there a challenge in terms of grid power for runway 3?
Thomas Woldbye
The short answer is that we believe not. Along with all other airports, we are maximising the use of electric vehicles on the apron, because it is good for the climate.
Chair
We have been told that you do not have charging capacity because of the shortage of grid connection.
Thomas Woldbye
Based on the latest analysis, we will have enough power for the next decade—that may be new information, but we do have that. We have an application in for another direct grid connection. We put that in place a couple of years ago, so that application is there and should give us a connection in 2037 at the latest. We would obviously like to work with you to make that faster.
Chair
My understanding is that that is a grid connection—a cable. Is there certainty about where the power for that cable will come from?
Thomas Woldbye
When we get the cable, we should get the power, but we can come back to you on that.
Chair
Yes, come back to me. Thank you.
Helen Elsby
To answer your other point and come back to the expansion plans, all the infrastructure enabled to utilise that additional power is in the plan and included in the cost, so we have thought about that.
Alex Mayer
The Climate Change Committee told us yesterday that its view is that the aviation sector should bear the costs of carbon removal and the additional costs associated with sustainable aviation fuels. If the Government agreed and adopted that position, how would that impact the affordability of your scheme?
Thomas Woldbye
You could argue that that is what happens today. We generally support the user-pays principle, both for airport charges and for carbon, so we are sort of aligned with that. The mechanism in our charges encourages the use of sustainable aviation fuel and means that that is redistributed between the airlines to give them an incentive. The airlines take that up fully, which means that users today are already paying for the SAF that is taken up. I think that is the future—and not just for aviation, by the way.
Alex Mayer
Are you not concerned that higher ticket prices due to that kind of policy would lower demand and therefore hit your bottom line?
Thomas Woldbye
Not demand on Heathrow. Heathrow is in a special position, in the sense that if we had a third runway today, we would probably have 120 million passengers, rather than 85 million. The demand for Heathrow is enormous and underlines the opportunities that we are currently missing. On the calculations that I did before—my previous airport was a frontrunner in doing this—the amounts we are talking about to pay for the additional SAF would not deter more than very small amounts of demand.
Helen Elsby
The only thing I would add to that is that the affordability question, which we have been talking about this morning, is key for this project. It again comes back to making sure we get the balance right and ensuring that it is not unaffordable and that we do not lose the benefit. That is why we are committed to working with policymakers and the industry to ensure that any solutions delivered are as low cost as possible so that we impact the affordability equation as little as possible. We have already been doing that. We have been doing lots of work over decades to improve this agenda, and we will continue to do so.
Dr Arthur
On noise, you said that you need to reassess the baseline assumptions for informing the noise test. I wonder what you meant by that.
Helen Elsby
We have improved the noise position considerably at Heathrow over a number of years. To give you some statistics, the noise exposure area has reduced by over 40% over the last two decades, and the percentage in a noise contour has also reduced significantly since 2006. All we are trying to say is that we want to ensure that the noise criteria are right and balanced with the impact that the increased capacity at Heathrow will have. However, we should not ignore all the good work that has gone into achieving the noise change that has already happened.
Dr Arthur
What kind of measures does that include?
Helen Elsby
It is just about making sure we are comparing it to the right point in time. Again, as with the SAF incentive that Thomas talked about, we also use our airport charges to incentivise airlines to have quieter aircraft at Heathrow. Chapter 14 aircraft—the quietest aircraft category—have increased from 65% to 86% since 2019. We are asking for that benefit to be banked as part of the test, to show how we are reducing noise at the airport. That is why we are talking about the baseline being important: that is a one-off change that we have already made and will not be able to make again, because the noisier aircraft have already left Heathrow.
Dr Arthur
I think the assumption is that there will be some improvements going forward.
Helen Elsby
Absolutely. As I have said, we would have to provide the mitigations for the test that we would have anyway.
Dr Arthur
That is a nice segue into community compensation. You have talked about the lower footprint. What is the uptake of the noise mitigation measures for all those who are eligible? How many people are actually using the compensation that is available?
Helen Elsby
I do not have the exact number of people. What I can tell you is that, at the moment, we spend over £14 million a year on noise mitigation measures in the local community.
Dr Arthur
So you have no idea what the uptake is? We heard earlier about your excellent relationships with the community, Thomas.
Thomas Woldbye
It is in the low hundreds, as far as I remember, but I would be happy to come back to you with the exact number.
Dr Arthur
It is a serious issue. Do you think it is appropriate for the specifics of community compensation to be set out in the NPS rather than in the DCO?
Thomas Woldbye
On which point, if I may ask?
Chair
There is a whole variety of community compensations—noise mitigation, nature reclamation and so on.
Thomas Woldbye
The 25% additional in the house purchase price, for example, is lodged in the NPS, so that is already there. I think that, for the more technical ones, like noise and others, as Helen said earlier, the NPS should give the outcome-based thresholds and the DCO should specify how we get permission and how we intend to solve that. When we do a project like this, we should try to stick to the well-tested processes. If you try to move that around too much, you get confusion and it becomes more difficult to deliver.
Alex Mayer
The appraisal of sustainability says that your scheme presents a greater biodiversity risk—basically, because it is bigger. Why, therefore, would a decision maker choose a scheme that appears to cause greater harm to nature?
Thomas Woldbye
Our objective is to leave better biodiversity when we are done with this than we have today. We have a requirement to leave 10% more. Despite being a big airport, we have 170,000 hectares of nature-positive land, which we are managing all the time. We have more than 4,000 species and have had an increase in the number of species found on that land. We intend to continue that work. We have a nature policy report, which comes out every year. It has benchmark awards for its quality. We have no plans to change that work or change its implications for a third runway.
Helen Elsby
I would go as far as saying that, with an opportunity of this size and scale, we have a real opportunity to make a positive difference, both for people and for wildlife around the airport. We absolutely understand that this is a concern of our local communities. We hear that, and we really want to work with them and organisations like the Environment Agency, which we work with every day, to make sure we are co-creating solutions that have a positive impact.
Chair
I think we are particularly referencing Colne Valley regional park. We need to get over to PMQs, so we may send you a couple of questions and ask for your responses, but very quickly, have you assessed whether increased SAF usage or evolving evidence on the long-term health impacts of ultra-fine particles could create new local air quality challenges?
Thomas Woldbye
We measure particles all the time, including ultra-fine particles. Today, there are no thresholds for UFPs, which is a bit of a challenge. It is a difficult science. At my previous airport, I spent many years on this, and we were one of the pioneers in measuring UFPs and their effects. It is not an easy topic, but we are measuring all the time.
Chair
Do you think there should be fixed limits on UFPs? Those are coming in for Europe, but not yet for the UK.
Thomas Woldbye
This is not about whether we want to do it. First of all, we need science to say whether this is harmful for people. If it is harmful for people, then—
Chair
There is plenty of evidence on that side.
Thomas Woldbye
Then we need to put in place thresholds that people need to live up to. As with any other dangerous substance, you will have thresholds that you need to live up to.
Chair
Thank you very much. We have had a long and informative pair of sessions today. Thank you for the evidence and the time you spent preparing. If there is anything that you did not get a chance to cover, feel free to write to us; we might have a couple of points that we want to explore with you. That concludes today’s meeting. We will finish our oral evidence on the draft Heathrow expansion NPS next week, when we hear from the Aviation Minister and the Civil Aviation Authority.