Prime Minister Andy Burnham has declined to say whether he supports plans to build a third runway at Heathrow, saying the decision should follow a consultation involving Londoners and other affected communities.
Asked during an interview marking the start of the Labour Party conference whether he would back the project, Mr Burnham said it was “principally” a matter for London and Londoners. He said it was not right to reach a conclusion before hearing the consultation’s outcome.
“It’s not right for me to just jump straight in on the back of the consultation,” he said. He later added: “I think it’s right that we hear what people have said through the consultation, and then consider the way forward from there.”
Mr Burnham subsequently acknowledged that the proposal was not only a London issue. Speaking to LBC Radio, he said he was “reticent” to state whether he supported the runway because there were “strong views on either side”.
He also said he could not prejudice a potential planning decision. The Prime Minister said the project remained a live consultation and could proceed into a planning process in which the relevant issues would need to be considered independently and fairly.
“It is a big decision,” Mr Burnham said. “There’s a very significant difference of opinion on the whole matter.”
The Government’s previous support for the project was announced by former chancellor Rachel Reeves in January 2025. Ms Reeves said the expansion would create 100,000 jobs and suggested that the runway could be open by 2035.
However, airport bosses have told ministers that meeting that date appears impossible. Heathrow aims to obtain planning permission by 2029 and considers construction of the runway within a decade of that point to be a reasonable objective.
The proposed expansion is estimated to cost £33 billion, including £1.5 billion for moving the M25 to make way for the runway. The scheme is expected to be fully privately financed. If completed, it would increase Heathrow’s capacity to 756,000 flights and 150 million passengers a year.
Several ministers have argued that the project is important to the wider UK economy. Treasury minister James Murray told the Press Association that a third runway would strengthen the country by supporting jobs, trade, investment and economic growth.
Mr Murray, whose Ealing North constituency is in west London, said the debate involved more than the capital. He said Heathrow was important both to his constituents and to the country as a whole, including because of its role in aviation investment and trade.
He said the Government was considering responses to the consultation and would set out its position shortly. Mr Murray also acknowledged that Londoners held different views on the proposal.
Business Secretary Jonathan Reynolds said there was a “trade argument” for expansion, pointing to the growth of cities in Asia that currently had no direct link to the UK. He said the country would need a “global top-tier airport”.
Mr Reynolds recognised local concerns about Heathrow but argued that the airport’s passenger and freight operations had an economic relationship with regions across the UK. He also said the UK should deliver major infrastructure projects faster.
Transport Secretary Heidi Alexander said an expanded Heathrow could become “the country’s front door” for tourists from China and India. She told The Telegraph that the climate impact of additional flights could be offset “holistically” elsewhere in the economy.
Economic growth minister Dan Tomlinson also backed the expansion. Speaking at a Labour conference fringe event, he said he was “very pro-Heathrow expansion”, adding that his support was partly influenced by his young child’s enjoyment of watching aircraft.
Mr Burnham’s refusal to endorse the runway therefore contrasts with the public support expressed by several ministers. But he has maintained that the consultation and any potential planning process must be completed before he takes a position.
The Government is now expected to respond to the consultation while the timetable, cost and wider economic and environmental implications of the proposed expansion remain under consideration.
