Final call for Heathrow’s third runway — will Andy Burnham be on board?

The clock is ticking for Heathrow. There is less than a month to go before the much-mooted and long-delayed third runway must get the green light from the Government, or else. Thomas Woldbye, Heathrow’s chief executive, set the deadline of “by December”, warning that unless his company’s investors — which include the sovereign wealth funds of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Singapore and China — received final reassurance, they would pull out of the £33 billion scheme.It’s possible that Woldbye was bluffing. In the timeline of the saga of the airport’s expansion, it is hard to see how a few weeks can make such a difference. This, after all, is an epic tale of high- level procrastination that has been rolling on for two decades, even longer if you go back to when the idea was first suggested. Still, 2006 was when the Department for Transport published its report on Heathrow’s growth and fastened upon adding to the runways.Since then, prime ministers have come and gone, Heathrow’s ownership has changed hands and company chiefs, officials and planners have moved in and out of their jobs. Meanwhile, the bill for the development has kept on rising. The current estimated cost is part of a wider investment in the airport which presently stands at £49bn. Nobody, though, realistically expects that if the go ahead was given, that would be the final figure. Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband, a keen environmentalist, is opposed to the expansion, as is Sadiq Khan for the same reasonAPWhat’s also occurred during that period is the rise in Heathrow’s passengers, up to 84.5 million last year. But while Heathrow is filled to capacity, so that airlines wishing to increase flights are being refused, its rivals have not been standing idle. Once Europe’s busiest, Heathrow has ceded that status to Istanbul. Other competitors, led by Paris’s Charles de Gaulle, Amsterdam’s Schiphol and Frankfurt Main continue to chip away and take business that would have been destined for a more capacious Heathrow.Even if approval was granted in the coming weeks, the earliest Woldbye’s new third runway would come on stream would be 2039, and we all know that where British infrastructure targets are concerned they have a habit of becoming ever distant (think HS2). Meanwhile, those other destinations would be advancing still further. At some point, someone has to bite the bullet and say yes or no. These weeks then could be crucial.In all, Heathrow accounts for £13.5bn of the UK’s GDP. The economic case is well metIt is worth reflecting what is at stake economically. In many people’s eyes, Heathrow is just another airport, albeit a giant one. They may use it infrequently and in doing so, scarcely afford the place a moment’s thought. The reality is that the vast complex represents Britain’s largest port, bar none, responsible for £300bn worth of trade a year. The airport supports 105,000 to 120,000 jobs locally — the new runway as envisaged by Woldbye’s team would create an extra 33,000.CGI image of expanded Heathrow showing third runway to the leftHeathrowHeathrow’s cargo terminal handles 1.59 million tonnes a year, which equates to 75 per cent of the total goods passing through Britain’s airports.In all, Heathrow accounts for £13.5bn of the UK’s GDP. The economic case is well met. You might be forgiven for supposing the politicians would do everything in their grasp to exploit that success. But they dilly-dally. There are significant environmental factors to consider: the noise and air pollution of the airplanes, additional traffic around the airport and the enormous disruption caused by the runway’s construction.The latest person on whose desk Heathrow lands with a resounding thump is Andy Burnham.Two former Labour prime ministers were keen exponents of the third runway — Tony Blair backed it in 2006 and Sir Keir Starmer, along with Rachel Reeves, his chancellor, revived it and ran with it in 2024. Starmer and Reeves are no more, so it falls to Burnham. In the past, as mayor of Greater Manchester he argued for regional airports, including Manchester obviously, to be expanded, not Heathrow. Prime Minister Andy Burnham was asked to support the third runway and five times he refusedPA WireNow he has the national baton. Five times at the Labour conference, Burnham was asked to support the third runway and five times he refused. He insisted it was “principally a matter for Londoners”. It was not clear what Burnham meant — was the third runway for the Mayor, Sadiq Khan to decide? Did it herald a city-wide referendum?Read MoreKeir Mather, the aviation minister, told the Commons Transport Select Committee Burnham was “speaking to the fact that this is a decision of enormous consequences for London”. Mather stirred the pot by saying Burnham “also recognised the central importance of Heathrow to UK economic growth, to our resilience, and also its status as an international hub airport”.Westminster insiders say that Burnham really is pro, but to say so would mark a betrayal of the North, of Manchester (Heathrow is in fact our only international hub — Burnham’s Manchester does not come close). He is anxious to avoid charges of so much money pouring into a London-centric venture.As for his chancellor, John Healey is supportive but not to the same vocal, strident degree as Reeves, who made it a linchpin of her reign. Healey says, “The case for a third runway at Heathrow has always been a case for growth.”But the environmentalist foreign secretary, Ed Miliband, is opposed, as is Khan for the same reason. So, the voice of Londoners, as Khan can lay claim to be, is against. To return to Burnham’s caveat, that would suggest game over.That is, unless Khan does not stand again and a pro-Heathrow mayoral candidate takes his place. It is no use either looking to the Tories for clarity. Kemi Badenoch and shadow chancellor Andrew Griffith (he termed the long-running controversy an “embarrassment”) are in favour, while their mayoral hopeful, Sir James Cleverly, is another who declines to provide straight backing.Previously, Cleverly has declared himself “very sceptical” and talked up the necessity of ensuring “the needs of Londoners are put forward first, particularly those in west London”.Griffith told the Tory conference: “The next Conservative government will do whatever it takes to end the delays and boost capacity by backing the third runway.” He added: “We will legislate to sweep away the blockers.”This is an epic tale of high-level procrastination that has been rolling on for two decadesBusiness and unions are for once united on a topic — they want the third runway, believing it will drive prosperity and employment. Lined up against them are the residents of west London living under the new runway’s flight-path and environmental campaigners.Chancellor John Healey is supportive but not to the same vocal, strident degree as ReevesPA WireIt isn’t clear what canvassing all Londoners would ascertain. Possibly, they would be “for”. But then should Cleverly’s stricture be obeyed and more weight attached to those in the area most directly impacted? Should greater significance be awarded as well to the often not so vocal or well-heeled people in the local areas who rely on the airport for work and regard an enlarged Heathrow as a beacon for future job creation?Burnham has said he is waiting to see two independent studies. One is the Department for Transport consultation, or as its officially called, the Heathrow Expansion National Policy Statement, which is due this month. The other is the report of MPs on the select committee, also set to be published in November.If they both agree, will Burnham follow their advice? But what if one is for and the other against? What then? Whatever they say, Woldbye’s deadline appears certain not to be met. Champing at the bit and raring to press ahead is hotel tycoon Surinder Arora with his cheaper (£8bn less), shorter alternative.Arora has been determinedly seeking the endorsement of the airlines and airport users worried by the effect of the Heathrow scheme on their charges and the time it will take to build. His plan has the appeal of not needing to relocate part of the M25. It’s found support among motoring groups and those who reside near the motorway. It may yet emerge as the compromise winner.In theory, shortly, all could be decided. Or not.