An abridged version of this article ran in The Times on 3rd February 2025
In 2007, in the pages of this newspaper, I argued that Britain should seize the moment and move Heathrow to the Thames Estuary, freeing up the congested west London site for much-needed housing while creating a world-leading transport hub fit for the 21st century. It was an ambitious plan—perhaps too ambitious for a nation that has lost its appetite for grand infrastructure. Seventeen years later, what do we have? The same tired debates, the same dithering, and now, a third runway proposal that represents the absolute minimum of what could be done. It is not a vision; it is a concession to stagnation.
Throughout history, Britain built infrastructure that transformed cities and continents. The Victorians laid thousands of miles of railways across India and Africa. British engineers built the world’s first underground railway in London, the great docks of Hong Kong, and the vast shipping hubs that made global trade possible. Ours was once a nation that saw scale and complexity as challenges to be overcome, not reasons to prevaricate. Today, while China constructs floating airports in Hong Kong and Dalian, we are still arguing over a few extra miles of tarmac at an aging airport hemmed in by suburban sprawl.
The case for expanding Heathrow is undeniable. The airport operates at near capacity, with any disruption causing delays that ripple across the global aviation network. Additional capacity is needed. But the third runway is not a bold leap forward—it is an unimaginative compromise. The design is a relic of a bygone era when Britain was still willing to approve large infrastructure projects but had already begun its slow descent into cautious incrementalism. Surely for a solution we should be looking beyond the immediate horizon, daring to create something transformative.
Compare this to the grand infrastructure ambitions of Asia. Hong Kong’s Chek Lap Kok, which replaced the legendary but perilous Kai Tak airport in the 1990s, was built on reclaimed land. It was a marvel of engineering (mostly British), completed in just six years. Now, China is taking the concept even further: Dalian is constructing a floating airport, pushing the boundaries of what is possible. This is a country that doesn’t simply accept geographic limitations—it overcomes them. Britain, meanwhile, is paralysed by protest groups, endless consultations, and political hand-wringing.
A floating airport in the Thames Estuary—an idea proposed and swiftly dismissed—would have been a statement of ambition. London could have had its own Chek Lap Kok, a world-class hub unencumbered by the constraints of Heathrow’s location. Instead, we are left with a piecemeal expansion of an outdated site, in a project that will take decades and still leave Britain trailing behind.
The environmental argument against expansion is often cited as a reason for delay, but it is a red herring. Modern aviation is rapidly advancing towards lower emissions and greater efficiency. If the concern is air pollution and carbon footprints, the answer is not to stifle airport expansion but to embrace new technology, support cleaner aviation fuels, and invest in modern air traffic management. Britain should be leading these efforts, not using environmental concerns as an excuse for stagnation.
The economic cost of our hesitation is immense. Aviation is a key driver of trade, tourism, and investment. Heathrow’s constraints mean we lose out to European rivals, with airlines shifting long-haul routes to Paris, Amsterdam, and Frankfurt. The third runway, even if built, will do little to reclaim lost ground. By the time it is operational—assuming it even survives the judicial challenges that will inevitably come—other nations will have long since surpassed us.
What Britain needs is a fundamental shift in mindset. We must stop viewing major infrastructure projects as necessary evils to be endured and start treating them as national priorities. This requires reforming our planning laws, streamlining approval processes, and fostering a political culture that celebrates engineering excellence rather than recoiling from it.
The third runway at Heathrow is not the answer—it is a symptom of our decline. Instead of an afterthought tacked onto an aging airport, we should be considering radical alternatives: offshore airports, high-speed rail integration to regional hubs, and a renewed commitment to infrastructure that places Britain at the forefront of global connectivity. We were once a nation that built the world’s most advanced transport networks, that pioneered engineering breakthroughs others only dreamed of. We can be that nation again—but only if we stop settling for mediocrity and start daring to think bigger.
The world is not waiting for Britain to catch up. While we squabble over a single new runway, China is building entire new airports on water. The contrast is stark, and the lesson is clear: boldness breeds success, hesitation ensures decline. If Britain truly wishes to remain a global player, we must abandon the timid incrementalism of the third runway and embrace the kind of audacity that once made us great.
Kit Malthouse 1st February 2025