The operator of the London Heliport in Battersea has confirmed plans to withdraw from the long-standing council-led consultative group and set up its own private oversight body—one that meets behind closed doors and excludes local residents. The move follows a string of disputes over aircraft noise and a mounting breakdown in trust between the heliport and the communities it affects.
For nearly two decades, the London Heliport Consultative Group (LHCG) has served as a voluntary forum for residents, councillors, and the heliport operator to meet, exchange information, and address concerns. But that relationship has now fractured.
Citing frustration with how meetings are run and a belief that the current format lacks purpose, heliport management has declared it will no longer participate in the LHCG. In its place, it plans to create a new consultative committee—one that meets at most twice a year, is hosted by the heliport itself, and crucially, includes no residents.
Only council officers and elected councillors will be invited. Residents will be expected to channel their views through councillors, rather than take part directly.
The heliport insists the change is about efficiency and clarity. But critics argue it marks the end of meaningful public oversight.
A System in Slow Decline
The LHCG has suffered from years of uneven attendance, delays, and a lack of follow-through. No meetings were held from 2020 to late 2021. The March 2023 meeting was cancelled without explanation. In March 2024, the heliport’s Managing Director failed to attend—forcing key agenda items to be deferred. Even when meetings do go ahead, attendance has been inconsistent, and the group has routinely failed to meet its own target of twice-yearly sessions.
Even as concerns have grown louder—from helicopter noise to air quality—the system meant to provide accountability has steadily weakened. Now, the heliport’s decision to go it alone threatens to dismantle that system altogether.
No Legal Requirement—But Real-World Impact
The heliport’s decision is, technically, within the rules. Under UK law, only large airports with scheduled passenger services are required to host statutory consultative committees. The London Heliport, with around 8,000 to 13,000 movements a year, falls well below that threshold.
But size isn’t everything. The heliport is located in one of the most densely populated areas of London, where even modest levels of helicopter traffic have outsized effects—particularly in terms of noise.
And while it may be small compared to Heathrow or Gatwick, the Battersea heliport is the only licensed public facility of its kind in the capital, handling corporate, charter, and emergency flights from its base beside the Thames.
The Study That Never Materialised
For years, residents have called for a formal study into the heliport’s impact on air quality and noise levels. One such study was conducted in 2017 by Wandsworth Council and academic partners, but without the heliport’s participation.
Since then, there have been repeated promises—but no delivery. In 2024, an updated study was costed at £20,000. Wandsworth Council signalled willingness to co-fund it. But Hammersmith & Fulham and Kensington & Chelsea have yet to commit. The heliport, meanwhile, refuses to proceed unless all three boroughs are involved, citing a need to avoid “perceived bias.”
This drawn-out delay has left residents asking whether the hold-up is strategic. With noise remaining the most common complaint, some suspect the study’s absence is more than just red tape.
Shifting Blame and Shrinking Transparency
In response to complaints, the heliport often points to external causes: emergency helicopters, sightseeing routes, even estate agents, who they say fail to inform prospective buyers about the heliport and schedule viewings during quiet hours.
But these explanations haven’t eased community frustration. Residents regularly report low-flying helicopters disturbing their sleep, work, and wellbeing. Some flights are clearly not linked to the heliport—but many are, and the boundaries of responsibility remain blurry.
Efforts to obtain more detailed flight data—such as timings, types of helicopters, or routes—have largely been refused, with the heliport citing resource constraints.
An Uneasy Tone
In December 2023, tensions escalated further when the heliport attempted to block the appointment of a resident representative. The individual, Tom Farrand, had submitted multiple noise complaints and was labelled a “vexatious complainant” by heliport management. He was ultimately appointed, after confirming he would represent residents constructively.
The episode raised concerns about the heliport’s tolerance for criticism—and its willingness to engage with those most affected by its operations.
One Heliport, No Oversight
There are other helipads in London—at hospitals, military sites, or private buildings—but none are licensed for public use at this scale. Battersea’s heliport is unique in London and rare in the UK, but now finds itself operating without independent oversight.
As the LHCG prepares to meet on 14 May for what could be its final session, councillors are expected to challenge the heliport’s withdrawal. But with no legal backing and a fractured group, their leverage is limited.
Unless the boroughs take coordinated action or the Department for Transport intervenes, London’s only heliport will soon oversee itself—behind closed doors, and without a single resident in the room.
